I’ve been lurking. OK, I’ve been working. It really interferes with my my babbling. 😉 Eventually I’ll spew out some long winded something or other. Until then, just grinding away here in Hollywood with FCP X. It still doesn’t suck. Speaking of Hollywood, the worm may be turning here… More on that if I can get any actual info. Until next time…
Opinion
Track Tetris. If you’re an editor, you know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s a game we all play constantly while we work. I don’t really think about it. It’s just a part of the process of moving clips from a source – or within a timeline – into a section of the timeline containing other clips. I suppose I could’ve just said ‘editing’, but this is a very fancy blog.
Like anyone, I prepare the timeline for each move or cut. Set rollers, patch the source tracks, lock tracks, move audio or video up or down to adjacent tracks, make new tracks etc. Once I’ve cleared the way, I move or cut in the clips. Usually it’s fine. But sometimes, I overwrite something I didn’t intend to. I lose the game. No biggie, hit undo and try again. Like I said… I never really gave it a second thought.
Then… I started using Final Cut Pro X. And the game changed.
I’d be lying if I said it was easy. It wasn’t. Counting my years as an audio guy, I had over 2 decades of daily brain/muscle conditioning screaming that this trackless magnetic timeline thing was completely absurd. No tracks?! WTF!?
DRAMATIZATION – DO NOT ATTEMPT
However, being a glutton for punishment I persevered. And I discovered that it does work, quite nicely in fact.
Yes, I still move things around in the timeline. But only when I want to, not because I have to. And I never need to move things out of the way. Mostly all I need to do is set my source I/O, select an in-point in the timeline, and press a key. Or grab some clips in the timeline and move them. FCPX takes care of how it fits into the puzzle for me. I don’t clear the runway, I just land. 😉 If I don’t like the arrangement I can change it later. Right now, I can stay with the flow, in the groove, whatever you want to call it.
So… why do we need tracks again?
Tracks exist because they’re analogs for, uh… analog. Audio tape recorders, film projectors, videotape players… all these things pass media over a fixed head of some sort with which they need to be in perfect alignment. That paradigm carried over into the digital world. It made it easier to understand. But the change to a digital world is (mostly) done. We don’t need tracks for that anymore.
I Used to Calibrate Things Like This
What tracks are very good for, is visual organization in a timeline. Walter Murch’s famous FCP “classic” timeline is the perfect example of that. Could he do something like that in FCPX? Well… If he needed it to look like that he probably couldn’t. Although, I can think of some ways to approximate it, but it’d be like using popsicle sticks and glue to build a house or something. So how do you visually organize a timeline in FCPX? you ask. Secondary Storylines and Roles, that’s how.
Admittedly, visual organization in the FCPX timeline needs some work, it’s far from perfect. But the foundation is there and it’s solid. Assign Roles properly, and you can see where everything is instantly. Maybe not how you’re used to seeing things, but not much about the FCPX timeline works the way you’re used to anyway.
In fact, if you’re like me and are more concerned with fitting all your clips onscreen than carefully arranging things, FCPX works really well right now. I have no idea how Mr Murch was able to work in that timeline. He must have had a really big monitor!
Here’s an illustration from an article comparing FXPX to FCP7 I wrote for Creative Cow some time ago… It’s a visual organization comparison of the same cut in both timelines. As you can see, my X timeline looks just like my 7 timeline. I was confused and terrified by the Primary Storyline back then, and didn’t use it. Foolish Noob! 😉
In 7, if I hadn’t cut it, I’d have no clue what any of those clips were just by glancing at the timeline. In X, select the desired Role(s) in the timeline index and there they are. Yes, you should be able to have clips with the same Role “stick” together. And preferably be able to choose where roles are placed vertically. VO at the top, then DIA, then FX, then MX or whatever you prefer. Once Apple figures that out, and I think they will, that will replace the last visual function that I think tracks still serve.
Organizationally, Secondary Storylines can already do what tracks do, and they’re more flexible. If you have a clip or clips cut into little pieces, and you’d like them to stay together rather than magnetically flying toward the Primary Storyline, Stick ’em in a secondary. Voila! A track. A track that you can grab and put wherever you want it in the timeline.
And if you connect your secondary to the first frame of the Project, all your little clips will stay right where they are in the timeline. They’re not connected to the Primary so they won’t unexpectedly move when you move clips in the Primary storyline. Great for Music beds and other things like that.
I agree that there’s work to be done with Roles. I’ve talked a little about the visual aspects, and there are audio aspects as well. Some sort of mix buss a Role(s) could be assigned to. Sends, Returns, things like that. Being able to mix a Role might be nice, though I’d rather do that in a DAW. And honestly, if Roles had all the Visual and Audio things I’ve talked a little about, I’d be OK with a trackless DAW. (don’t bother flaming me… I get it, just speculating here…)
I realize they don’t meet everyone’s needs, but for me, Roles and Secondaries can do much of what tracks did, and more. Even with their current imperfections. Combined with the Magnetic, Trackless Timeline, they allow me to just cut stuff without stopping to think about where it fits in the timeline. I can focus on what, not how. I like that.
But here’s the best thing of all about FCPX. No More Track Tetris!! I hate that damn game…
One of the reasons I prefer cutting in FCPX is that, in my opinion, it is much simpler to cut in. I’ve touched on this before. . . by simpler, I mean I spend less time doing technical manipulations in the app, and more time doing creative manipulation. You know… editing.
To me, the trackless, magnetic timeline, audio components riding with video clips, one inspector window, clip skimming, real time effects preview and a raft other things make cutting in X simpler, faster, and more fun. That’s not to say there aren’t complicated or confusing things in FCPX, there most definitely are. I’ve never been one to claim that X is perfect or better at everything than every other NLE available. It isn’t. Every NLE has it’s strengths and weaknesses, anyone who claims otherwise is deluded.
I believe that for most editing operations, if there is an easy way to do something then that is a better way to do something. And it’s not just true for FCPX. There are simple ways of doing seemingly complicated things in every NLE. But, maybe because editing software has been so complex and arcane for so long, sometimes the longer you’ve been editing, the more likely you are to come up with complicated ways of doing things. I know I’m generalizing wildly here, so calm down. 🙂 This generalization though, brings me to the point of this particular post.
I recently joined a couple Editors groups that are not focused, or even terribly interested in FCPX. Ya know, because nobody uses it. I like FCPX and I’d like to change that though, so I ‘m in.
Anyway. . . there were a couple FCP 7 questions posted there on which I commented.
I’m not posting this to try and come off as some sort of genius know-it-all. I’m not… I’m just lazy. lol
I look for the simplest ways to do things, and this exchange seemed to me to be a perfect illustration of the Simple vs. Complicated mindset.
Question: “how do you do a Ghost image in FCP7? You know – a guy turns around, turns around..”
First answer: “Layer same shot – superimpose w/ 8point matte key”
Follow up: “or play around with visibility”
A perfectly valid, but complicated, response. Layer x number of video tracks, offset each one by x frames, apply and adjust a mask or opacity on every clip. Keep tweaking until it looks right.
My response? “Effects Tab ->Video Filters ->Time folder-> Trails or Echo Filters.” Simple, right?
Here’s the other one. . .
Question: “How do you maintain aspect ratio while adding transition effects in Final Cut 7- particularly a cross zoom?”
Translation… “I have a cross zoom between two (16:9 or something) matted clips but the zoom fills the frame. how do I keep the 16:9 matte during the transition?”
First answer: “which version of FCP? Sequence settings? codec working with?”
Followup: “Apply the transition, and simply nest (Option+c) the 2 segments that are part of the transition: the A side, and the B Side: (. . .) Once these 2 clips are nested in a single new one, apply the Matte effect, and use the drop down Widescreen option in the effect. Here you’ll be able to choose the aspect (1:66, 1:85, 2:35, etc), and you should be able to finesse the matte further if needed. (. . .) If you want to load the nested clip in your sequence into the source viewer, you’ll have to right click and “Open in viewer”.
Again, a perfectly correct, but complicated response. Apply the transition, nest the 2 clips and transition, apply a filter, and adjust it to taste. But be careful with the nested clip. If you need to adjust the transition you’ve got to step into the nest to do it.
My response? “Just put (this) above your transition, adjust it’s size to match your crop. done.
Simple.
EDIT: Oliver Peters has an interesting post on simplicity at his blog. He’s always a good read, check it out.
I am a trailer editor. In practice, that means that what I cut from day to day is mostly TV commercials for movies. There are only so many actual, theatrical trailers that get cut for any given film and there are significantly more TV spots to go around, so that’s what most of us end up doing. In the grand scheme of things, there aren’t really a lot of people and companies that cut this stuff.
The competition is friendly, but fierce. Like any business, everyone pretty much knows what the competition is doing, and everyone would be happy to be working on whatever someone else is.
So. . . in a fiercely competitive business, if a tool came along that required some work to master, but would ultimately cost you less and probably allow you to work more quickly and maybe get a leg up on everyone else would you:
A-try it out or even put it in place and see how it worked.
or
B-get mad at the creator of the tool and/or disregard it as useless without really trying it.
That tool is FCP X and, up ’til now, the choice that seems to have been made in our little niche, is B. That’s not to say that nobody is using it, there are a lot of people using it quite successfully. Network promos, News, TV shows, Features, Documentaries. . . All being cut on FCP X. So, why isn’t anyone cutting trailers with FCP X? Well, there are some legitimate workflow concerns with FCP X (for now), but that hasn’t stopped companies in other, related niches from deploying it. And yes, it requires some retraining, but that hasn’t stopped some companies in our niche from switching from FCP 7 to Media Composer. I’ve said it before, as far as I can tell the main reason nobody in our business is using FCP X, is that nobody else is.
Why do I care? Because I use FCP X. I like it. And I don’t want to have to blindly follow the herd onto some competing NLE. The fact that Adobe Premiere is really similar to the old FCP or that Media Composer has gotten “better” has zero appeal to me. It’s a negative really. What I like about FCP X is that, once learned, pretty much everything I need to do is easier than it is in other NLE’s. Not creatively, that’s the same in any NLE, but technically. I can spend exponentially more time in X just cutting.
There are some folks who really like the fact that there are 5 ways to pan an audio channel or 20 preference panes or 30 built in tools most of which you don’t need. I am not one of them. I like simplicity, and that was one of the big appeals of the original FCP. It was just easier to work in compared to the alternatives. And for me, that’s the case with FCP X now. I spend a lot less time manipulating the application, and more time editing. And, it’s fun to cut in. I’m perfectly capable of navigating a complex UI, but if the app I’m in can take care of some of that drudgery for me, it makes me smile. I can spend my time figuring out what to do creatively, rather than how to do something.
There’s a new version of FCP X coming out soon, if you’re reading this later in December it may already be out. In addition to the usual bunch of new features and improvements, I believe it will make collaboration much easier. This is a pretty big deal to folks in the trailer business and – other than the crappy launch (ancient history) and needing to learn the app (not that difficult once you bother to try) – it’s been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for X’s adoption. The next few months should be… interesting. 😉
“Nobody in town uses it.”
~ the echo chamber
“It” is Final Cut Pro X, which -if you’ve been under a rock for the last 2 years or so- is Apple’s replacement for the aging, but much-loved, Final Cut Pro 7. “Town” is Hollywood CA. And, in the context of this rant, “nobody” is, allegedly, everybody who edits movie trailers and TV commercials for movies. Interestingly, that quote has been repeated to me in the office in which I work. Why interestingly? Because in this office I cut movie trailers and TV commercials for movies. On Final Cut Pro X. Does that seem. . . Odd? It reminds me of. . . something. . . (insert time machine noise here)
A few years before the turn of the century, I worked for a little trailer company in Hollywood. One day in 1999, Apple released a brand new editing program called Final Cut Pro. It looked pretty cool, was relatively inexpensive and I’m kind of a geek, so I immediately bought a copy. I tried cutting something in it. It crashed. At version 1.0, it was kind of useless for what I do. Most “professional” editors believed it was basically a toy. No OMF output. No EDL output. Maybe good for home movies, certainly unsuitable for real work.
But, I kept messing with my little copy at home. After a few updates I felt it kind of was useable, so I brought FCP and my recently retired Performa into my office, set it up next to my Media Composer, and started cutting stuff on it. Media Composer was definitely more “powerful”, but my little FCP rig could do a bunch of stuff MC couldn’t. Also, FCP was kind of fun to cut in.
People at work thought it looked interesting, but didn’t take it seriously. Then, in January or February of 2000 (FCP 1.2?) I somehow managed to get a TV spot cut in FCP approved, and finished . . . maybe it wasn’t so useless. Conveniently, we were needing to replace our aging Avid systems and the folks who ran the place decided to dive into FCP one system at a time. Eventually we switched completely to FCP. Many others followed.
Now clearly, plenty of other people were using FCP, but not in our little trailer-cutting niche. More importantly for FCP’s broad adoption, the first TV show cut in FCP came out at around the same time, the “new” Oxygen Network began using it, eventually somebody cut a “hollywood” film on it, and the floodgates opened. FCP became an “industry standard”. A few more years passed. I went to work at another little trailer company. . .
One day in 2011, Apple released a brand new editing program called Final Cut Pro X. Being a geek, I immediately bought a copy. I opened it up. Tried to cut something in it. It crashed. A lot. It was really weird. It was also really really cool and fun in a lot of ways. But at 1.0 it was not ready for what I do. Like many others, I recoiled in horror, gave up, and continued working away in FCP 7.
But after a few updates that addressed my workflow, I gave it another try. After a bit of hair pulling and a couple tutorials, I discovered I actually liked it. So, I loaded it up on my work system and started cutting stuff on it. Then, in May or June of 2012 (FCPX 10.4?) I somehow managed to get a theatrical :30 trailer cut in FCP X approved, and finished. But things are different this time. . .
In spite of the fact that people in this business have been cutting real, national spots in FCPX for well over a year, despite the fact that one can quickly do quality graphics and compositing in X that would normally need to be done in another application, despite all the features of X that make life as an editor easier, many people in the trailer business still don’t take FCP X seriously. Nobody wants to try it because. . . nobody wants to try it. Honestly, had that attitude been prevalent 15 years ago, there probably wouldn’t have been a Final Cut 7 to cling to like a sinking lifeboat. It’s time to let go.
That’s not to say there haven’t been legitimate reasons not to use X. When it came out, FCPX wasn’t even close to being ready to do everything that FCP 7 could do. That is no longer true. If you now, for some reason, require fixed tracks or another specific feature (that is actually missing, not rumored to be) then it may not be for you. If you learn it, and just don’t like it, fine. But there’s another, illegitimate reason people don’t give it a shot. Apple botched the launch of FCP X. It looked like iMovie and they “killed” FC Studio which, even though it still works, made people feel that Apple was “abandoning” pros. That scared a lot of people off initially, including me.
I spent the first year of FCP X’s existence re-learning the MC interface and learning the much improved Premiere. Fine NLE’s, but they just didn’t have the same “feeling” as good old FCP. And FCP X just sat there on my system, getting updated, but not getting used. Until the point alluded to above that I felt that if I did something with X, I could get it out to finish. So I waded back in. Now, my hair pulling moments come when I’m in FCP 7 or Premiere. There are still things other NLE’s do better than X, and there are things X does better than the others, some things X does others can’t do and vice-versa. And there are some things that you can only do in FCP X. But because of the initial bad taste people got, there’s still a ton of wrong information floating around in the echo chamber.
Despite what you may have heard, you can exchange sequences from X with FCP 7 and Premiere in both directions. For X, the one big sticking point has been the ability to easily share work in a multi (FCP X)-editor workflow. It’s do-able now, but kind of confusing.
[UPDATE: This was written before 10.1 was released. Now, sharing stuff works almost exactly as before, maybe easier. Export XML of Project, Event, or Library from one system, import into another. EZ]
Current versions of Resolve, Smoke, Logic and others all open FCP X projects. It’s likely that a lot of other things will be able to interact with X as well pretty soon. In our little niche we need EDL’s and AAF’s, and for what Automatic Duck used to cost you can do all that and get enough really cool plugins to make your head explode. And cutting in X is fun. That’s right, Fun.
At this point FCP X is a viable replacement for the original FCP. It’s different. You can’t just jump into it. You need to take the time to learn it. But, as someone who does this for a living, believe me, it’s worth it. If you’re an Avid person, stick with MC. If you like Premiere, stick with it. But if, like me, you’re someone who really likes cutting in FCP 7, I’ll just say this. . . once you learn how FCP X works, once you get past the point of having to figure out which button/keystroke/menu/window does what, once you get comfortable with it, it feels the same. It’s hard to define, but. . . you know what I mean.
If you cut on FCP “classic”, unless you just freeze your system in time, you’re going to have to learn a new NLE. If you run a company based on FCP “classic” you’re going to have to switch NLE’s. And the prevailing wisdom is that FCP X is not a viable choice. “Nobody in town uses it.” Well, the prevailing wisdom is. . . misinformed. I use it. There are plenty of others who use it. If you need to switch from FCP 7 – and you do – you should give X a try.
Final Cut Pro X Babbling 
