Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 58 of 58
  1. Collapse Details
    #51
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by j1clark@ucsd.edu View Post
    I don't see FCP X as in any way positioning to serve the Internet market....

    I really don't see how Internet content producers are going to not need the host of applications, formerly collected into 'convenient' suites, that are available. The Internet producer will need an Audio program, a Effects program, a 3-d Modeling program, etc... I don't see FCP X as being the beachhead into that future.
    I'll respectfully disagree with you here. I am an Internet content producer. I've been doing it for 10 years, first with photos then with photos and films, and has been my entire source of revenue for the last 7 years as my full time business.

    The delivery "gold standard" for most content providers I know right now is 3 mbps H.264 in 720p, with a few dipping their toes in the waters of 1080p. It is viewed on everything from crappy mobile phone screens through to decent calibrated monitors, but you have no clue how your customers are viewing the final footage. I've just had a long thread on my site's forum because one member complained that a lot of my photos are "very dark". They aren't- I know they aren't, because I have a calibrated colour workflow and I have the RAW files with histograms to prove it. So most likely his monitor is cheap, badly calibrated, crushing the blacks or he's using an ancient viewer which doesn't recognise sRGB properly (or maybe all three). And this is for stills photos taken on a digital Hasselblad with an entirely colour calibrated workflow.

    Can you IMAGINE the variation in display results that these customers are going to get watching internet video, which has a very much less mature colour calibrated workflow? How the audio is going to sound through tinny PC speakers costing a few pounds turned to max volume, or cheapy iPod headphones?

    At some point, this lack of control over how your work is viewed makes it non-cost-effective to continue sweetening. I do not believe that I would sell enough extra copies of my work if I were to pass it to a professional sound editor or colourist to cover their fees. I'd be better off spending that money in front of the camera. The brutal reality is that once you've done a decent colour grade and a decent audio sweetening pass, the additional improvements are likely to be lost in delivery- and passing out to external program to do that basic pass is not time-efficient enough to do routinely, either. Sure, we like to aim as high as we can, but beyond a certain point it just becomes impossible given the scale of our operations.

    I'd probably do even better to spend any such money on the next project, because the one thing that the Internet has is an insatiable lust for new product. People expect me to deliver a five minute narrative short EVERY WEEK... AND four photosets, edited to an acceptable standard as well. With only two staff, that's a lot of material to produce.

    And that means that like most other Internet content producers I know, I am a one-man-band when it comes to the edit suite. And for people like me, the ability to get a second cut with a basic colour grade and basic audio pass QUICKLY is far more important than the ultimate quality one can attain. As cheap TV shows are to feature films, Internet content production is to cheap TV shows. Our second cut is what we have to release, generally, so we can get on with next week's releases.

    The miracle is that it is possible to do it all as such a cottage industry, with just two regular staff and a few actors and crew as hired talent for shoot days. The quality we attain is by no means worthy of the BBC, of course, but compared with what we were managing a few years ago it looks pretty bloody good. We're constantly learning new ways of making stuff look more expensive than it is. (Two or three nice dolly shots with foreground interest go a very long way for example!) I'd love to have the luxury of more time and bigger budgets, but I don't, I have to wring the most I can out of all our productions in the time I have available to do it.

    FCPX is shaping up to be a very powerful tool in this "as much of the production value as you can get, but quick as you can" approach. I've been editing with FCP6 for about 2 years, using Premiere before that (and I have CS5 as well, which I'm maintaining as my fallback). I've just edited my first five minute short with it and was impressed not just how quickly it came together in a rough cut, but how fluid and easy it was for me to chop and change and trim the fat and add inserts and cutaways and bring the whole thing together. Sure, I missed Magic Bullet Looks and Colorista II, but I did the grade in FCPX's tools and it took me no longer than it would have in FCP6, which is quite a recommendation for the first time I'd used the program. (And Red Giant say MBL and Colorista are coming for FCPX). I love the new visual editing metaphors and for a version 1.0 program it is very promising indeed. (Sony Vegas users, if this is what you've been using for years no wonder you stuck to your program like glue).

    Doing the audio sweetening pass was much quicker in FCPX than in FCP6- even though it was my first time using it. Would it pass muster for the BBC? For a feature film? Of course not. But given the production schedule of all the internet content producers I know, the ability to make sure nothing was clipping, dialogue levels matched from clip to clip, and swiftly apply an overall set of EQ got me a long way in a very short space of time.

    Sure, FCPX is an absolute non-starter if you need to share EDLs with the guy doing the next step in your production chain. The sample effects are mostly horrid, and it could do with some rounding out of corners (like a bar to show which bits of footage have been used), some missing functionality put back in (multiclips) and the plugins to be rewritten for the new engine. But in terms of visual metaphor for slick and creative editing flow, it is really looking good to me at this point!

    But if the guy who has to do that next step is you, and the computer it will be done on is yours, it's just not much of an issue. I can always export media and render back to ProRes if I need interchange, generation losses of ProRes don't bother me much when my acquisition format was AVCCAM and my delivery is H.264! Motion5 looks good for getting nice results quickly, and I have AE for when Motion won't cut the mustard. I never used Color- took too long to faff around with different programs given the production schedule, frankly. I could get most of the way there with Colorista II in much less time. I only took sound out to external editors if there was an egregious problem (noise or otherwise mangled audio). Otherwise I did the pass in FCP6... and it is a LOT quicker and easier in FCPX.

    So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine.

    I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.

    Cheers, Hywel
    Last edited by Hywel; 07-08-2011 at 06:48 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #52
    Senior Member bgundu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,462
    Default
    Thanks for sharing. I'm always interested in peeping into other people's workflows. It sounds like apple definitely had content producers like yourself in mind for FCPx.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hywel View Post
    I'll respectfully disagree with you here. I am an Internet content producer. I've been doing it for 10 years, first with photos then with photos and films, and has been my entire source of revenue for the last 7 years as my full time business. The delivery "gold standard" for most content providers I know right now I 3 kbps H.264 in 720p, with a few dipping their toes in the waters of 1080p. It is viewed on everything from crappy mobile phone screens through to decent calibrated monitors, but you have no clue how your customers are viewing the final footage. I've just had a long thread on my site's forum because one member complained that a lot of my photos are "very dark". They aren't- I know they aren't, because I have a calibrated colour workflow and I have the RAW files with histograms to prove it. So most likely his monitor is cheap, badly calibrated, crushing the blacks or he's using an ancient viewer which doesn't recognise sRGB properly (or maybe all three). And this is for stills photos taken on a digital Hasselblad with an entirely colour calibrated workflow.Can you IMAGINE the variation in display results that these customers are going to get watching internet video, which has a very much less mature colour calibrated workflow? How the audio is going to sound through tinny PC speakers costing a few pounds turned to max volume, or cheapy iPod headphones?At some point, this lack of control over how your work is viewed makes it non-cost-effective to continue sweetening. I do not believe that I would sell enough extra copies of my work if I were to pass it to a professional sound editor or colourist to cover their fees. I'd be better off spending that money in front of the camera. The brutal reality is that once you've done a decent colour grade and a decent audio sweetening pass, the additional improvements are likely to be lost in delivery- and passing out to external program to do that basic pass is not time-efficient enough to do routinely, either. Sure, we like to aim as high as we can, but beyond a certain point it just becomes impossible given the scale of our operations.I'd probably do even better to spend any such money on the next project, because the one thing that the Internet has is an insatiable lust for new product. People expect me to deliver a five minute narrative short EVERY WEEK... AND four photosets, edited to an acceptable standard as well. With only two staff, that's a lot of material to produce.And that means that like most other Internet content producers I know, I am a one-man-band when it comes to the edit suite. And for people like me, the ability to get a second cut with a basic colour grade and basic audio pass QUICKLY is far more important than the ultimate quality one can attain. As cheap TV shows are to feature films, Internet content production is to cheap TV shows. Our second cut is what we have to release, generally, so we can get on with next week's releases. The miracle is that it is possible to do it all as such a cottage industry, with just two regular staff and a few actors and crew as hired talent for shoot days. The quality we attain is by no means worthy of the BBC, of course, but compared with what we were managing a few years ago it looks pretty bloody good. We're constantly learning new ways of making stuff look more expensive than it is. (Two or three nice dolly shots with foreground interest go a very long way for example!) I'd love to have the luxury of more time and bigger budgets, but I don't, I have to wring the most I can out of all our productions in the time I have available to do it. FCPX is shaping up to be a very powerful tool in this "as much of the production value as you can get, but quick as you can" approach. I've been editing with FCP6 for about 2 years, using Premiere before that (and I have CS5 as well, which I'm maintaining as my fallback). I've just edited my first five minute short with it and was impressed not just how quickly it came together in a rough cut, but how fluid and easy it was for me to chop and change and trim the fat and add inserts and cutaways and bring the whole thing together. Sure, I missed Magic Bullet Looks and Colorista II, but I did the grade in FCPX's tools and it took me no longer than it would have in FCP6, which is quite a recommendation for the first time I'd used the program. (And Red Giant say MBL and Colorista are coming for FCPX). I love the new visual editing metaphors and for a version 1.0 program it is very promising indeed. (Sony Vegas users, if this is what you've been using for years no wonder you stuck to your program like glue). Doing the audio sweetening pass was much quicker in FCPX than in FCP6- even though it was my first time using it. Would it pass muster for the BBC? For a feature film? Of course not. But given the production schedule of all the internet content producers I know, the ability to make sure nothing was clipping, dialogue levels matched from clip to clip, and swiftly apply an overall set of EQ got me a long way in a very short space of time.Sure, FCPX is an absolute non-starter if you need to share EDLs with the guy doing the next step in your production chain. The sample effects are mostly horrid, and it could do with some rounding out of corners (like a bar to show which bits of footage have been used), some missing functionality put back in (multiclips) and the plugins to be rewritten for the new engine. But in terms of visual metaphor for slick and creative editing flow, it is really looking good to me at this point!But if the guy who has to do that next step is you, and the computer it will be done on is yours, it's just not much of an issue. I can always export media and render back to ProRes if I need interchange, generation losses of ProRes don't bother me much when my acquisition format was AVCCAM and my delivery is H.264! Motion5 looks good for getting nice results quickly, and I have AE for when Motion won't cut the mustard. I never used Color- took too long to faff around with different programs given the production schedule, frankly. I could get most of the way there with Colorista II in much less time. I only took sound out to external editors if there was an egregious problem (noise or otherwise mangled audio). Otherwise I did the pass in FCP6... and it is a LOT quicker and easier in FCPX.So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine. I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.Cheers, Hywel


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #53
    Default
    Hywel, I wish I was as good at putting thoughts to paper as you are. Perhaps the other thread ("X makes perfect sense from a business standpoint") wouldn't have rat-holed so quickly if I'd been able to verbalize what you did. - Tim
    Tim Gooch
    iTGooch, LLC: IT Consulting [Project/Process Management, C/C++/C#/ActionScript/Flex/Objective-C]
    iTGooch Productions: Location Sound, Voice Talent, Independent Video Production [AF100/HVX-200/GH13/ FCS3]


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    683
    Default
    I'll respectfully disagree with you here. I am an Internet content producer. I've been doing it for 10 years, first with photos then with photos and films, and has been my entire source of revenue for the last 7 years as my full time business.

    The delivery "gold standard" for most content providers I know right now I 3 kbps H.264 in 720p, with a few dipping their toes in the waters of 1080p. It is viewed on everything from crappy mobile phone screens through to decent calibrated monitors, but you have no clue how your customers are viewing the final footage. I've just had a long thread on my site's forum because one member complained that a lot of my photos are "very dark". They aren't- I know they aren't, because I have a calibrated colour workflow and I have the RAW files with histograms to prove it. So most likely his monitor is cheap, badly calibrated, crushing the blacks or he's using an ancient viewer which doesn't recognise sRGB properly (or maybe all three). And this is for stills photos taken on a digital Hasselblad with an entirely colour calibrated workflow.

    Can you IMAGINE the variation in display results that these customers are going to get watching internet video, which has a very much less mature colour calibrated workflow? How the audio is going to sound through tinny PC speakers costing a few pounds turned to max volume, or cheapy iPod headphones?

    At some point, this lack of control over how your work is viewed makes it non-cost-effective to continue sweetening. I do not believe that I would sell enough extra copies of my work if I were to pass it to a professional sound editor or colourist to cover their fees. I'd be better off spending that money in front of the camera. The brutal reality is that once you've done a decent colour grade and a decent audio sweetening pass, the additional improvements are likely to be lost in delivery- and passing out to external program to do that basic pass is not time-efficient enough to do routinely, either. Sure, we like to aim as high as we can, but beyond a certain point it just becomes impossible given the scale of our operations.

    I'd probably do even better to spend any such money on the next project, because the one thing that the Internet has is an insatiable lust for new product. People expect me to deliver a five minute narrative short EVERY WEEK... AND four photosets, edited to an acceptable standard as well. With only two staff, that's a lot of material to produce.

    And that means that like most other Internet content producers I know, I am a one-man-band when it comes to the edit suite. And for people like me, the ability to get a second cut with a basic colour grade and basic audio pass QUICKLY is far more important than the ultimate quality one can attain. As cheap TV shows are to feature films, Internet content production is to cheap TV shows. Our second cut is what we have to release, generally, so we can get on with next week's releases.

    The miracle is that it is possible to do it all as such a cottage industry, with just two regular staff and a few actors and crew as hired talent for shoot days. The quality we attain is by no means worthy of the BBC, of course, but compared with what we were managing a few years ago it looks pretty bloody good. We're constantly learning new ways of making stuff look more expensive than it is. (Two or three nice dolly shots with foreground interest go a very long way for example!) I'd love to have the luxury of more time and bigger budgets, but I don't, I have to wring the most I can out of all our productions in the time I have available to do it.

    FCPX is shaping up to be a very powerful tool in this "as much of the production value as you can get, but quick as you can" approach. I've been editing with FCP6 for about 2 years, using Premiere before that (and I have CS5 as well, which I'm maintaining as my fallback). I've just edited my first five minute short with it and was impressed not just how quickly it came together in a rough cut, but how fluid and easy it was for me to chop and change and trim the fat and add inserts and cutaways and bring the whole thing together. Sure, I missed Magic Bullet Looks and Colorista II, but I did the grade in FCPX's tools and it took me no longer than it would have in FCP6, which is quite a recommendation for the first time I'd used the program. (And Red Giant say MBL and Colorista are coming for FCPX). I love the new visual editing metaphors and for a version 1.0 program it is very promising indeed. (Sony Vegas users, if this is what you've been using for years no wonder you stuck to your program like glue).

    Doing the audio sweetening pass was much quicker in FCPX than in FCP6- even though it was my first time using it. Would it pass muster for the BBC? For a feature film? Of course not. But given the production schedule of all the internet content producers I know, the ability to make sure nothing was clipping, dialogue levels matched from clip to clip, and swiftly apply an overall set of EQ got me a long way in a very short space of time.

    Sure, FCPX is an absolute non-starter if you need to share EDLs with the guy doing the next step in your production chain. The sample effects are mostly horrid, and it could do with some rounding out of corners (like a bar to show which bits of footage have been used), some missing functionality put back in (multiclips) and the plugins to be rewritten for the new engine. But in terms of visual metaphor for slick and creative editing flow, it is really looking good to me at this point!

    But if the guy who has to do that next step is you, and the computer it will be done on is yours, it's just not much of an issue. I can always export media and render back to ProRes if I need interchange, generation losses of ProRes don't bother me much when my acquisition format was AVCCAM and my delivery is H.264! Motion5 looks good for getting nice results quickly, and I have AE for when Motion won't cut the mustard. I never used Color- took too long to faff around with different programs given the production schedule, frankly. I could get most of the way there with Colorista II in much less time. I only took sound out to external editors if there was an egregious problem (noise or otherwise mangled audio). Otherwise I did the pass in FCP6... and it is a LOT quicker and easier in FCPX.

    So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine.

    I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.

    Cheers, Hywel
    And the long answer award goes to....


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #55
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Hywel View Post

    So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine.

    I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.

    Cheers, Hywel
    Clearly from you description you are in 'the target market'... FCP X as it is now is not anything I'd be interested in. I could have been interested with a product that had 'audio', et al... of additional packages. But speaking where one started... Back in the olden days, I chose After Effects over a 'myriad' of other options to do effects on stills. Even the 'premiere' presentation authoring software of the era, Director crapped out on the number of images I wanted to manage. A few years ago, the Wife did a project with Photoshop that got her up to an 8 GB psb file. At that time the only google search I found for people with the problems we were having with Photoshop, were people doing Landsat images... The project was intended to be printed out such that one could in fact fill a ceiling with the image...

    So, if Adobe had come out with a 'new and improved Photoshop', that had little or no filters, only handled images up to 2 GB, or 1 or 2 layers... I'd be complaining about Adobe's 'vision' of the future.

    As it is Adobe does have a 'less for less' version of Photoshop... and Apple has a 'less for less' version of video editing... And as a note... I can recall when one had to buy additional 3rd party filters for PS (as well as AE, etc.), and it is very convenient for someone who wants to do things differently to have those tools 'just there', rather than having to apply someone's idea of say, The Ken Burns Effect... again one of the ancient reasons for picking After Effects, was so that I could control any effect via keyframing, rather than rely on some 'canned' effect.

    But definitely, using a canned effect is 'faster' than controlling for subtle effects.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #56
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Inland Northwest
    Posts
    13,169
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by j1clark@ucsd.edu View Post

    But definitely, using a canned effect is 'faster' than controlling for subtle effects.
    Of course, if the client prefers the "canned effect" rather than the subtle effect, which is the preferable one?

    Or if the client could only afford the "canned effect?" What then?

    In its current version, FCP X is missing SOME collaborative tools that are essential to SOME professional editors.

    Some won't return, although the skinny is that some will.

    Why does the horse continue to be beaten?
    David S.


    Aerial Videography For Beginners, Part 1

    Aerial Videography for Beginners, Part 2



    Accept No Imitations.
    www.dvxuser.com | www.reduser.net | www.scarletuser.com | www.dvxfest.com
    and...
    www.BMCuser.com - The Online Community for Blackmagic Camera users.
    Filmmaking Communities powered by Landmine Media, Inc.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #57
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David Saraceno View Post
    Of course, if the client prefers the "canned effect" rather than the subtle effect, which is the preferable one?

    Or if the client could only afford the "canned effect?" What then?

    In its current version, FCP X is missing SOME collaborative tools that are essential to SOME professional editors.

    Some won't return, although the skinny is that some will.

    Why does the horse continue to be beaten?
    Because Casey Anthony was found not guitly, and gosh darn it, I'm angry. Someone's got to pay, it might as well be a dead horse.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,085
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneinapond View Post
    Because Casey Anthony was found not guitly, and gosh darn it, I'm angry. Someone's got to pay, it might as well be a dead horse.
    Like.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •