Editing with RED (rd3) files in FCPX

[Aleisha Hamilton Paspuel]

Hello!

 

I am a neophyte asking for some advice. I edit with FCPX and with a recent project have needed to start working with RED (rd3) files in FCPX. I have never done this and am very unfamiliar with just about everything. I am beginning to realize that I am not understanding several things, and would like them clarified.

 

First off, I was taught to always click the box "create optimized media" when importing footage, but never really understood what exactly this did. I did this with the rd3 files, they took forever to import (about 12 hours) and the "transcoding and analysis" function in the background after 24 hours was only at 5% and kept starting over. I turned it off.

 

My question is, did I ruin something by doing that, and should I have done that at all? Should I have neither checked "create optimized media" to just import as is?

 

My goal is to edit the footage (actually a mix of footage from a Canon 5D Mark III and the RED) into something, then do the color grade on the final project in DaVinci (a program I am also new to). What is the best way to go about this? I have a feeling that life will be much easier if I do my homework now, rather than halfway into the project. What tips do you have for me as far as the best way to edit with RED in FCPX?

 

I did download the RED Apple Workflow Installer, and am on a 2011 MacBook Pro, 16 GB 2.7 GHz Intel Core i7 if that helps. Editing with a USB 3.0 from external hard drive.

 

Thank you so much, any tips are greatly appreciated!

[Tyler Purcell]

First off, welcome to the forum!

 

Second, you need to download a program called Red Cine X which is on Red's website. It will allow you to do batch transcodes of the rd3 files and apply a basic LUT to each shot so there will be some sort of continuous accurate color. You can't drag and drop them into FCPX and expect them to work, it's just not going to happen even if Apple says it will work. Final Cut X is a majorly flawed program and unfortunately it's still a toy. So sure it will accept anything you wish to give it, but working with it on any serious level will cause huge headaches. The best thing to do is transcode everything using Red Cine X into something more palatable like standard Pro Res 422, which is a native quicktime codec, unlike red files. Then drag and drop those transcoded files into FCPX and work with them. I'd honestly do the same thing with the MPEG2's that come out of the Canon 5D. This way, everything is in the same format.

 

The Red camera's shoot in a "raw" format which looks desaturated and very flat. They are a highly compressed camera as well, which is why it literally takes forever to transcode the smallest of files. It's not your computer, it's literally the decompressing of the codec. The Red workflow is designed for professional use, nowhere near "drag and drop" like the MPEG2's which come out of your DSLR Canon 5D MKIII, which can be worked with in FCP X, though with some potential issues.

 

Hope some of that makes sense. ;)

[Aleisha Hamilton Paspuel]

Thank you so much and thanks for having me!

 

Your reply is great and very clear! Yeah FCPX is definitely a "gem" at times, I have been thinking about starting a cloud membership and trying out adobe, just to this point I have not had the time to learn a new program and it has been economically more in my interest to keep with FCPX. This scenario is making me think twice though....

 

A couple more newbie questions:

 

When I transcode the rd3 files into Pro Res 422, does it change the footage from 4K to a high def version (1080p)? In other words, do I lose information? The reason why I wonder is because the people shooting the footage told me that they shot wide with the RED in many instances so in post the editor could crop to the closeup that they wished.

 

Could I also get by with not applying the LUT? On previous advice I have been told to leave everything as is until the actual color grading, as the application of an LUT could create some hurdles and loss of information in that department.

 

I am also assuming frame rates would remain the same after transcoding. Sounds like a really dumb thing to question, but hey I have walked into landmines before so now I always ask the dumb questions.

 

Again thank you so much,

 

Aleisha

[Tyler Purcell]

Yep, you'd be scaling it down to 1920x1080 for editing purposes. It's not just resolution loss, but bit depth loss as well. If you don't change the clip names, after you edit, it will be easy for someone to take the rd3 files and re-conform the show at original resolution. Shooting at 4k so you can zoom in later, is a pretty lame excuse. People tell me that all the time and I'm like no… its digital video, just get the coverage on location and be done with it. I shoot pretty much everything in 1920x1080 standard 16:9 HD because frankly, there isn't anyplace to see it in 4k. Cinemas are 2k and 1920x1080 is only slightly smaller then 2k. Heck, most televisions and broadcasters aren't even 1920x1080 native. So yea… people who push 4k onto unsuspecting filmmakers infuriate me.

 

If you don't apply a LUT, the image will be super flat and desaturated. Maybe your cinematographer applied a Rec709 LUT when he shot, I don't know if you can do that with the Red. You don't loose or gain by having the software apply a LUT. All that does is bring back some of the lost colors. You can still color the files no problem. However, you SHOULD be conforming the rd3 files in DaVinci at a later date once your done with editing.

 

Frame rates stay the same throughout the process. Red Cine X however is a complex tool, I'd absolutely read the documentation before use. It could very easily spit out 4k Pro Res 4444 files and you'd be sitting on terabytes worth of information to edit with! EEK!!!

[John Miguel King]

With a 17" macbook the transcoding is going to take, literally, weeks.

 

Your best bet is switching to Premiere and using its Mercury Playback engine. Set the debayering on the R3D footage to 1/4 resolution and you'll be able to edit realtime with both sources (h264 & R3D) without the need to transcode either.

Question: without "creating optimised media", can you get realtime payback on FCPX?

All other solutions require a more advanced knowledge of post workflows, and failing to do the steps right can result in very painful mistakes down the chain.

[Kalechi Noel]

Much to late to respond to this , but the Individuals above are wrong. Yes, Final cut does allow to drag and drop red files. No transcoding necessary. No Rendering necessary. Just download the red fcpx plugin off Red's website and that's it. Drag and drop all your raw red files, and edit in 4,5,6k easily . You can also adjust the raw settings (i.e. temperature, tint) etc right from final cut pro X.

 

Btw, for those above, FCPX was used to edit Will Smith's Focus. So do your research.

[Tyler Purcell]

Drag and drop all your raw red files, and edit in 4,5,6k easily .

Actually that is incorrect. JPEG2000 which is what RED code is based on, has the ability to down-scale pretty easily. So what you're editing with is actually a scaled down version of your files. Feature films like "Focus" will edit from proxy files and then export an EDL/XML5 to which the high resolution material will be re-linked and colored. Nobody is using raw red material for a feature film, it just doesn't happen.

 

Also, the moment you add a few video tracks and effects to a sequence using RED code, you're taxing the GPU, CPU and storage so much, it will basically stop working. This is an even bigger problem off shared storage (NAS or Fiber SAN), which means actually "editing" not playing around, but the physical act of multi-layer cutting, is impossible with R3D files. Sure, there are people who "experiment" and use single video tracks, but to edit a real product, you need more then one track and a super fast computer.

 

Just for the record, setting up editing systems for professionals is kind of my business. I'm a professional consultant for the post production industry and what you're saying really doesn't work for professionals. It may work for your personal material on your brand new macbook laptop, but it won't in a professional environment due to so many other issues like total online media amount, storage speed, CPU/GPU speed and of course complexity of sequence. You can do quite a bit with down-scaled RED media on a single thunderbolt drive with one video layer. However, most people won't have that configuration and/or need more then one layer of video.

[Kalechi Noel]

Not making this into a debate, and Not questioning your experience or the clients you consult for your ... but I actually own a Red camera.... Run a production company here in NYC, and all my jobs are shot on Red, and edited in FCPX. We do music videos, films and commercials.

 

The workflow is simple. Import Native r3d files... transcode to Proxy... and edit fast and efficiently in 4k. When we're done with the edit, a simple toggle switch converts the footage to the high res Native r3d where my colorist works in Color Finale (Denver Riddle's Own App). For Davinci users, a simple xml roundtrip does the job.

 

FCPx handles and edits my Native red files flawlessly. Yes, i do happen to own a new Mac Pro, but we also own multiple iMacs and our editors also edit on their laptops (in proxy). It's a bit too late, but the individual above needed to only edit in proxy, and when switch to r3d for grading.

 

FYI, "Focus" was not shot on Red, it was shot on alexa in ProRes 4444XQ, (which FCPX imports natively and adds a LogC rec709 Lut instantly) without needing to render and transcode. It just "works". In Focus, What was so nice about theFCPX workflow was that editors began editing on SET while filming was going on. If you care, read the article on the workflow on Apple's website. Working with Red, you can stay in 4k, 5k, 6k, apply all the luts you want, right in fcpx with no render or need to transcode high res.

 

FCPX was built from the ground up to take advantage and work seamlessly with Mac hardware. Yes , the industry is run on Avid, and PP has swooped up many of the other fcp7 users... I will never argue or debate that. But theres a fast growing user base of fcpx users out there and there's an even larger group of iMovie kids learning to edit on school iMac who are doing amazing projects in elementary high school who will switch to fcpx due to the seamless transition and easy learning curve.

 

So the workflow is proven to work, and i'd challenge any editor otherwise.

 

Cheers.

Actually that is incorrect. JPEG2000 which is what RED code is based on, has the ability to down-scale pretty easily. So what you're editing with is actually a scaled down version of your files. Feature films like "Focus" will edit from proxy files and then export an EDL/XML5 to which the high resolution material will be re-linked and colored. Nobody is using raw red material for a feature film, it just doesn't happen.

Also, the moment you add a few video tracks and effects to a sequence using RED code, you're taxing the GPU, CPU and storage so much, it will basically stop working. This is an even bigger problem off shared storage (NAS or Fiber SAN), which means actually "editing" not playing around, but the physical act of multi-layer cutting, is impossible with R3D files. Sure, there are people who "experiment" and use single video tracks, but to edit a real product, you need more then one track and a super fast computer.

Just for the record, setting up editing systems for professionals is kind of my business. I'm a professional consultant for the post production industry and what you're saying really doesn't work for professionals. It may work for your personal material on your brand new macbook laptop, but it won't in a professional environment due to so many other issues like total online media amount, storage speed, CPU/GPU speed and of course complexity of sequence. You can do quite a bit with down-scaled RED media on a single thunderbolt drive with one video layer. However, most people won't have that configuration and/or need more then one layer of video.

[Tyler Purcell]

The workflow is simple. Import Native r3d files... transcode to Proxy... and edit fast and efficiently in 4k.

Right... "transcode to proxy" that means you're not editing with the raw material, you're editing with proxy files. That's kind of of my point when it comes to the FCP workflow.

 

The last feature I worked on that was shot with RED, had over 50TB of raw material. Good luck organizing and transcoding that in FCPX. They wound up sending it out of house and getting back Pro Res proxy files for editing. That's what MOST people wind up doing with R3D files since Pro Res uses the open GL engine and is designed for multithreading, unlike JPEG2000 which is all GPU.

 

When we're done with the edit, a simple toggle switch converts the footage to the high res Native r3d where my colorist works in Color Finale (Denver Riddle's Own App). For Davinci users, a simple xml roundtrip does the job.

I've never seen this round trip actually work with anything but a short subject piece stored on a single drive. Everyone says it works great, but FCPX struggles to handle bigger projects, using mass storage arrays. I've done lots of testing and most of the time it just doesn't work.

 

FCPx handles and edits my Native red files flawlessly.

I'd love to see 5 layers of video, 20 audio tracks playing in real-time using raw R3D material with no transcodes. . With one video track and a few audio tracks, maybe... but even some facilities I've worked at, they've not even been able to get that far. Direct attached storage helps a great deal, especially if it's fiber or thunderbolt.

 

It doesn't really matter what computer or software you use at that point. Once you get over 2 layers of video in any program that's "native" to R3D material, it generally stops working. I know fancy FCPX with all it's bells and whistles doesn't really want you to work with multi-level video, but unfortunately when you're working on bigger projects, with clients sitting over your shoulders, that's how you've gotta work unless you're cutting a multi-cam television show and simply use the editor as a switcher.

 

Yes, i do happen to own a new Mac Pro, but we also own multiple iMacs and our editors also edit on their laptops (in proxy). It's a bit too late, but the individual above needed to only edit in proxy, and when switch to r3d for grading.

Yep, most people will be working with proxy files, which is really the only way to work with R3D material.

 

FYI, "Focus" was not shot on Red, it was shot on alexa in ProRes 4444XQ, (which FCPX imports natively and adds a LogC rec709 Lut instantly) without needing to render and transcode. It just "works". In Focus, What was so nice about theFCPX workflow was that editors began editing on SET while filming was going on.

I'm watching the speech from Light Iron about "focus" right now. I stopped because you mentioned editing on set whilst the filming was going on. I hate to break it to you, but I was doing that 15 years ago when Pro Res first came out. We'd take the tapes shot from the F900, ingest them using a portable recorder directly into our portable raid array. We had 3 assistant editors working through the material and cutting individual scenes and organizing dailies on the spot. A drive would then be dropped off to the lead editors place over night and in the morning they'd do a quick cut of the material, so by noon during lunch, the director could sit down and watch a "cut" version of everything they shot the day previous.

 

In 2007/2008 I developed an on-set editorial system using FCP again, to capture in real time media directly off modern digital cinema cameras. It used a program called Picture Ready, which would store a 1080p squeezed (anamorphic) pro-res file onto the raid array based on start/stop of the camera integrating camera timecode. The editors would take that material and in real time, they could start cutting with it since the files were open and never closed. It allowed for INSTANT cutting of scenes, no transcode, you didn't even have to wait for the shot to be over, we could literally edit AS the camera was shooting! We built a little plugin for FCP that would de-squeeze the anamorphic material by simply drag and drop. We also had the 12 channel raw audio integrated as well, so the editor could pick and choose their audio sources. Plus, when you were done with the cut, the timecode matched up perfectly to the original digital media coming out of the camera if you used timecode as your base.

 

So none of this is new... in fact, I've worked on jobs that were shot on film, where the lab would process over night, telecine and we'd have cut scenes by lunchtime the next day.

 

The problem is, everyone thinks this is all amazing new technology and it really isn't. Integrating media with effects artists located at different facilities, is something we were doing 10 years ago!

 

Now sure, we worked with 1080p Pro Res 422 material on pretty much all of these projects, but that's only because the software didn't accept higher resolutions at the time. The cool part is that our fiber based integration with all the effects houses, would allow us to pick and choose final shots for VFX work, push them over to the effects house with our Pro Res file as a guide and they'd integrate into their compositing tools. Back then, a lot of people were still using Shake, but anyone using Smoke (which was new at the time) would have full integration of XML's coming out of FCP. So we built a huge facility full of Smoke work station's, trained the compositors to use that software and literally pushed XML's and media over fiber between the different facilities. This system is still in use today here in L.A. and all of what this video talks about is stuff we did FAR before anyone of these guys thought about making this particular film.

 

The problem I have with apple and Final Cut Pro is they've ignored the proper way to edit in their GUI. They said, hey everyone, you're going to edit like we want you to edit. They also hide a lot of the features from the public, making it another iMovie and iPhoto which constantly break and are slow because the back-end gets goofed up. The great thing about FCP7 was how simple it is to work with. Even Premiere is far less complex to work with back end wise, then FCPX. Once you learn Avid's back end, it too is very simple and easy to understand. Plus, the great thing about Avid is the AMA linking ability, which is actually 100% native with any JPEG2000 material like R3D.

 

Where I'm not a fan of Avid by any means and it took me years to adapt and start working with it on my own projects, I absolutely swear by it being the best tool on the market. Yes it has problems, but it's a logical program which makes sense. The problem with FCPX is that none of it makes sense. If you're an editor and you wish to get a job editing, learning with FCPX isn't going to help your career. However, Premiere, FCP7 and Avid, they're pretty much industry standard operating, which is vital. As more and more companies make the switch to Premiere and Avid from FCP, it's going to be harder and harder to learn those programs when all you know is the Mickey Mouse workflow that's FCPX.

[Kalechi Noel]

I seriously considered not responding to you earlier because i told myself i didn't want to get into another back -n-forth tit for tat over NLE's but here goes.

 

Listen, Hollywood, (like any industry) has a system and formula in place, and it simply works... and it works well.... and it makes THEM A LOT OF MONEY. I don't expect anyone to change the formula anytime soon... BUT just because everyone uses it, and is accustom to it, doesn't necessary mean it's the best!. It simply means everyone is used to it.

 

FCPX was rewritten from the ground up for a new breed of filmmaker and new breed of editor. FCP7, like PP, like Avid are all track based NLE's designed to be familiar and similar to the old way of editing film (which i know very little of btw). FCPX was designed for the digital filmmaker, with file based footage and camera metadata in mind. All this info is read by FCPx and organized accordingly allowing one to search through hours of footage by "camera model", "camera angle". One can keyword ranges of footage (i.e. 1:12 - 1:16) and label it "good insert"... and repeat the step across multiple clips, which all get archived into a "smart folder" with all the "good inserts". this is all done seamlessly and effortlessly. It's like a giant database. This approach allows for "no save" button function and unlimited UNDO's, because fcpx , like OS X, is constantly recording to this giant "data base". FCPX took away the tracks and introduced a new paradigm (the magnetic timeline) that blows out track based systems ONLY once you've taken the time to learn and understand it.

 

Michael Cioni did a case study on FCPX and he himself said its the most Advanced NLE

 

 

https://vimeo.com/73797466 (scrub to 13:41)

 

...and here's 3 little 2 minute videos demonstrating the power of FCPX editing RED Dragon Footage on a Volkswagon Commercial recently.

 

Magnetic Time Line simplicity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Ru...ature=youtu.be

 

Organizing Footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvZgB0z8oPQ

Editing Live while Playing Back Footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPQw...ature=youtu.be

 

 

So, contrary to popular believe, it's not as mickey mouse, as many claim it to be. It's just been sadly dismissed because it's new, and radically different, and challenges people who've been taught a certain way of editing for the last 10-15 years , to learn a new way of editing. My entire editing staff have all been converted to FCPX and haven't looked back. They now do their personal projects on FCPX. Unlike Avid, Premiere , Theres no life-time monthly subscription model in place. It's simply $300 onetime, and with the mac app store can be downloaded on as many computers as you want using your AppleID.

 

Again i'm not going to sit and debate one NLE vs another. I'm simply pointing out strengths of FCPX and how it can be useful in todays digital media age. For all the people that said FCPX isn't ready for primetime, "Focus" refutes that claim. Colorist Denver Riddle recently graded another major motion feature "just let go" which was shot on Red, and edited / graded in FCPX, and released in theaters.

 

In conclusion, to each their own. All NLE's can get the job done... (some arguably better than others). If it pays the bills... stick with it. One thing i can say for certain though is that, all the editors who have actually given FCPX a try (edit an entire project, learning the In's and Out's of the software), have never looked.... and that speaks volumes.

 

Cheers.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Kalechi Noel

[Tyler Purcell]

FCPX was rewritten from the ground up for a new breed of filmmaker and new breed of editor. FCP7, like PP, like Avid are all track based NLE's designed to be familiar and similar to the old way of editing film (which i know very little of btw).

I use to work with Apple on NLE development. Apple was loosing money with FCP7, so even though the developers did make a 64 bit version of FCP7, they were let go and some of them went to Avid, others went to Adobe, a few went to Blackmagic. Final Cut X started as iMovie with a slightly different GUI. As they gained traction, they added features to the pre-existing iMovie engine and eventually replaced it with a much more powerful one. Yes, I'd agree that Apple developed FCPX for those people who refuse to learn the standards of editing.

 

I've been editing for 20 years (film and linear) and modern NLE's have nothing to do with editing film. They're more akin to A/B/C roll linear editing actually, with a preview and program monitor, with assemble, insert and cut functions. The J/K/L keys, which act as a jog shuttle. With audio scrubbing like an analog tape machine.

 

Track's are what you need to test new ideas and add layers of effects. You need the ability to add 10 tracks of video on top of what you're working with, so when the client comes in, you can show them different ideas without switching sequences, by simply turning on and off tracks. Plus, when you're really editing, you're constantly isolating effects and tracks to test new ideas without the other ideas gumming up the works. This goes for audio as well, most of my audio tracks have a minimal of 2 effects per track and sometimes even more. Not per clip... per track! Remember, Avid is "track" based editing and FCP is "clip" based editing, very different world. Even though, FCP7 can work just like an Avid, which is pretty crazy. Plus, Avid and FCP7 are both keyboard based editing software. So there is no need for dragging, dropping or frankly, using the mouse. This makes for super fast cutting, far faster then any other NLE if you know how to use it. Yes, it's more key strokes, but those strokes can be performed faster.

 

Listen, Hollywood, (like any industry) has a system and formula in place, and it simply works... and it works well.... and it makes THEM A LOT OF MONEY. I don't expect anyone to change the formula anytime soon... BUT just because everyone uses it, and is accustom to it, doesn't necessary mean it's the best!. It simply means everyone is used to it.

You're talking about workflow and I've been an advocate for changing the workflow. However, in most cases you can't change it. Most films will be edited using proxy files no matter what. This is to cut down on cost and I haven't seen a single example from anyone editing an entire main-stream feature film on FCPX using raw 4k/6k media. Now, I worked in trailers, EPK's and BTS industry for quite a while. Studio's won't give you the raw media for security reasons, so you're yet again, editing in proxy files, generally given as a Pro Res SD format. Every single trailer you've ever seen, has been cut in proxy and then online edited at a lab where the master files are online. That's just the workflow and that's not going to change because storage is still very expensive and studio's are not going to release feature films in 4k quality for people to cut with, that's never, ever, ever going to happen.

 

"Focus" used 2k media, not 4k media. They proxy transcoded everything as well. So we're not talking about a much different workflow then there rest of the industry already uses. A few pixels from 1080 to 2k.

 

In this case, the NLE is almost irrelevant. In fact, they probably could have edited faster using Avid's script sync which actually listens to your dialog and matches it up to the script in real time.

 

All this info is read by FCPx and organized accordingly allowing one to search through hours of footage by "camera model", "camera angle". One can keyword ranges of footage (i.e. 1:12 - 1:16) and label it "good insert"... and repeat the step across multiple clips, which all get archived into a "smart folder" with all the "good inserts". this is all done seamlessly and effortlessly.

Right, but Avid and FCP7 does all the same stuff. In fact, the Avid Metadata is even stronger because of Script Sync.

 

My workflow is to watch a clip and make markers. I then edit those markers using not just key words, but also notes. Those notes are available to the search system. So whenever I'm looking for something, I can simply type in what I'm looking for and it will pop up. Avid 8 adds a "relevancy" system as well, just like FCPX, so you can adjust relevancy depending on key words. The best thing is that Avid NAILS critical things like "reel" and timecode information. These are both super critical when going back to online media or frankly if you work with ANYTHING ELSE but a modern digital video camera.

 

I honestly don't care about MOST of the metadata collected by FCPX. What kind of camera, what F stop, what shutter speed, what lens, what card, etc... these things are irrelevant in most cases. You do need to know what "reel" (mag) it is. You do need to know where the file is stored (physical location of original media) frame rate, resolution, time/date, timecode, scene and take. There are a few plugins that can read slates, which are nice for auto metadata. But script sync does most of this for ya anyway.

 

Michael Cioni did a case study on FCPX and he himself said its the most Advanced NLE

I wasted 2hrs of my day watching his videos. He clearly makes money off selling his products. He has some great ideas, but they're just ideas and frankly, shooting a mid-budget feature film with stars in 2k and finishing in 2k, heck even considering that as "finishing" quality, just proves how wrong he is. 4 perf fine-grain 35mm negative is almost 6k worth of resolution and even in the cinemas, fourth generation, it's still around 3k worth of information. So all this new "digital" technology isn't any better then what we shot with for the last 20 years (ever since T grain stock's came out 20 years ago).

 

It's just, a lot of these "whiz kids" don't even contemplate those things. They're not concerned about final output quality or that they're showing a 2k image on a 4k projector, really? I mean the whole thing is just silly and doesn't make any sense. He talks a good talk, but so far none of the numbers appear to be backing up his claims. Yes, it's easier on the filmmaker, but in the 40's, 50's, 60's, we made movies in less time, with less money, without VFX, without monitors, without instant reply and some of them are considered some of the best movies ever made.

 

Digital production is over-bloated with multi-camera shooting, with DIT's, video village, take upon take because there isn't any consequence to just running the camera. I don't share Michael's optimism and future take on technology what so ever. I think the digital age is failing miserably and in 20 years when MOST of the stuff we produce today can't be scaled to whatever our next resolution is, people will look back and say they messed up. It reminds me of the early digital films, stuff shot on NTSC video like 28 Days later. Totally unwatchable today and there isn't anything you can do about it! Forever, that film will look that way, unlike originating on celluloid, which is completely scalable for the future. Nobody thinks about those things.

[Brian Drysdale]

I've never used FCPX, but it seems like they've just created the term "storyline" for tracks. I suspect for heavy duty editing you';ll aways need to break the audio down into separate tracks (no matter what you want to call doing that).

 

https://library.creativecow.net/austin_charlie/FCPX-Timeline/1

 

I can see the parallels between timelines on NLEs and something like the Pic Sync film viewer/gang synchronizer and how film editors use bins rather than VT editing, which is more linear.

[Kalechi Noel]

Honestly Tyler ... the more you respond... the more your age is showing...

 

Yes, I'd agree that Apple developed FCPX for those people who refuse to learn the standards of editing.

 

No disrespect to you, but Making statements like this make you sound very old and antiquated. If anything, a more accurate and less ignorant statement would be, "it was designed for editors who were open to try a new approach to editing". FCPX was designed from the ground up to take advantage of and more efficiently work with clip/ file based workflows in today's digital media age. In a world where content is being acquired in 4k on devices like iPhones, GoPros (in additional to Red / Arri, Black Magic camera) ... and in a world where a lot of content is being consumed on the web in 4k... (Netflix 4k, youtube 4k, Vimeo 4k)... FCPXs approach to editing makes it light years ahead of the competition for easy editing and delivery. I believe Avid just allowed 4k editing on it's timeline for the first time last year....where premiere and FCPX have been doing this since 2011. With Red Dragon 6k coming out, and Red weapon 8k on the horizon... Avid (like many of its editors) , will once again be playing catchup (which is one of the reasons they are losing marketshare and taking losses every quarter).

 

Track's are what you need to test new ideas and add layers of effects. You need the ability to add 10 tracks of video on top of what you're working with, so when the client comes in, you can show them different ideas without switching sequences, by simply turning on and off tracks. Plus, when you're really editing, you're constantly isolating effects and tracks to test new ideas without the other ideas gumming up the works. This goes for audio as well, most of my audio tracks have a minimal of 2 effects per track and sometimes even more. Not per clip... per track!

Uhmm... and what if you sat down with me for 5 minutes and I showed how this can be done more faster, quickly and more efficiently in FCPX.... then what would you say? Guess what, there is a different way to get this done!! Like i said earlier, just because something has been done a certain way for 10-15 years... does NOT mean that's the only and best way to do it. Rules/ like standards can easily be broken, changed, and/or improved upon. With Camera technologies changing so rapidly these days, a track based editing standard from the 90's just isn't the only way of editing anymore Tyler.

 

 

My workflow is to watch a clip and make markers. I then edit those markers using not just key words, but also notes. Those notes are available to the search system. So whenever I'm looking for something, I can simply type in what I'm looking for and it will pop up. Avid 8 adds a "relevancy" system as well, just like FCPX, so you can adjust relevancy depending on key words. The best thing is that Avid NAILS critical things like "reel" and timecode information. These are both super critical when going back to online media or frankly if you work with ANYTHING ELSE but a modern digital video camera.

 

.... uhmm, FCPX does that , and then some. You are wasting your time mentioning features FCPX already has built in. To further enhance that experience, 3rd party software like "Producers best friend" and "Sync-n-Link" by IntelligenceAssistance further take advantage and simplify the metadata search functionality even more on a micro level allowing editors to search DIALOG , specific words and sentences , right there in the NLE. I wouldn't be surprised if this software and functionality is available on Avid, but this just illustrates that FCPX is right on par with the competition, and in some instances, Ahead of the competition.

 

 

Michael Cioni .... a lot of these "whiz kids" don't even contemplate those things. They're not concerned about final output quality or that they're showing a 2k image on a 4k projector, really?

 

Uhmm, considering Michael Cioni and LightIron are one of the first pioneers of the RED Workflow and 4k Acquisition, which noticeable titles as (Girl with Dragon Tatoo, Social Network, Pirates of the Caribbean, and whole slew of movies and television shows they are credited with... perhaps you might be mistaken. Michael and his team are one of the leading advocates 5k Epic,6k Dragon and now 8k acquisition... offering on set DIT and consultations services for production utilizing this new technology. Your above statement simply says to me you need to do not know what you are talking about in regards to "light iron and Michael" and perhaps need to do a little more research before you waste your time and mine going on a pointless rant , mentioning techniques and features FCPX already has.

 

So in conclusion, FCPX did a hell of a job editing $100 Million dollar Hollywood feature film named "Focus". If you don't believe me, ask Lead editor Jan Kovac, and question his knowledge. He does btw come from an Avid background.

 

Times are changing Tyler... are you?

Edited December 29, 2015 by Kalechi Noel

[Tyler Purcell]

I flat-out dislike everything about Final Cut X.

 

I also work in Hollywood. My job is producing content which goes on television and in the theaters. I also consult with the top production houses as a specialist related to developing hardware/software solutions and workflows.I always suggest FCPX to facilities who are migrating away from FCP7 and the backlash is huge. Every editor I know has used FCPX, either despises it or uses it for kiddy fun stuff and doesn't think it's ready for prime time.

 

I've cut quite a bit with every version of FCPX, I was an early adopter editing an entire web series with it. Yet, as they added features, it's not really gotten any better. Much of what makes Avid so powerful, they just don't understand. They try to force people into working a non-logical environment and it doesn't work. What it does is turn people off and it's absolutely turned me off. It's great at cutting, it's not good at anything else.

 

So what I've learned and experienced over the last 5 years since FCPX came out is that Apple has no interest in making a professional tool. They have hindered FCPX enough to make it just a toy that's capable of being tricked into being something else. The truth is, Apple themselves don't trust the software they make! Apple's own in-house editors use Avid. Apple's marketing company uses Avid. So all the training video's, all the marketing/promotional pieces, those are all made on Avid. Mind you, prior to FCPX, Apple was 100% FCP7 and most of the in-house technology they developed for FCP7 like Final Cut Sever, which was lightyears ahead of everyone else's media management solution, was a complete failure on the open market.

 

I have the heart of this industry in my hand, my ear is always on the ground and I'm acutely aware of what's going on. I don't believe times are changing. Most people could give two shits about resolution. Editors are here to tell stories and the best story telling tool, is the one that doesn't hinder your abilities. Avid is such an open tool, capable of doing everything under one roof, it's very hard to edit with FCPX which is so limited. Until you sit down and learn Avid inside and out, you just don't know.

 

Jan Kovac was an assistant editor prior to doing "focus". So yea, I'd argue pretty much everything he did because I've heard him talk and don't agree with much of it. Yea, for heavy visual effects shows, FCPX does have some great solutions. However in reality land, people don't do effects in house anyway. They send finished cuts to effects houses and they deliver the final shots to the finishing house when they're combined to the final picture. Also, if you aren't doing heavy visual effects shows, that benefit goes right out the window.