"Corrado" - A production blog

Status
Not open for further replies.
Methodology is very important in NLE. I have only two years experience with FCP 5.04, so there are a lot of problems still.

For example, I used to click on a picture or sound clip and hit delete. Wow, the problems that caused me! Now I always click on a clip and then control-click and then cut. That way nothing else moves.

I always render when I add a layer or something that needs rendering. Then I save as. So I don't understand why I have to nest or work with sequences rather than just render and leave the clip in the full timeline.

Thanks for commenting on this aspect. Why complicate a movie like Corado if there is no need to complicate it? I'm not suggesting that you're all trying to complicate it, but if there are going to be recommendations about specific organizing to improve the movie then it's worth exploring it more.
 
Interesting, Filmman. I suspect Vegas is a little easier to use in that respect an probably why all other NLE users do it the way they do.

I can toggle between ripple and non ripple mode. Example: if I delete a clip with ripple on, it immediately squashes the rest of the clips together and takes up the slack of the deleted clip. If I toggle ripple off, I am left with a nice neat hole the size of the clp that was deleted...nothing else is affected.

On the other hand, if I want to make a hole to insert something, I leave ripple on and drag the spot where i want a hole. Presto....ten tracks full of data move over nicely without affecting a thing.


Not sure if that is what you were speaking of, but vegas is very powerful and intuitive. There's no reason not to build the movie on the timeline clip by clip. No ideas about other NLEs though.....never used them.
 
filmman said:
Methodology is very important in NLE. I have only two years experience with FCP 5.04, so there are a lot of problems still.

For example, I used to click on a picture or sound clip and hit delete. Wow, the problems that caused me! Now I always click on a clip and then control-click and then cut. That way nothing else moves.
Click to expand...

The delete key performs a different function than the backspace key (confusingly, they are labeled the same on Mac keyboards). Like Adam said, what you're doing is called "ripple delete" and it's easily turned off (in this case simply by pressing delete instead of backspace). Try it, you'll like it! :happy:


filmman said:
I always render when I add a layer or something that needs rendering. Then I save as. So I don't understand why I have to nest or work with sequences rather than just render and leave the clip in the full timeline.
Click to expand...

You don't HAVE to... it's just a way of:

1) organizing your work process, allowing you to move between sequences quickly while still maintaining the best picture
2) NOT having to constantly render, thus saving time and disk space

I can't imagine the workflow nightmares that would develop on a large project if I constantly rendered out my sequences. Then any little change requires going back to the project file (after many months, try remembering how everything was set up!), making the change, rendering again... the point of any tool should be to enable you to work FASTER so that you can easily experiment and explore different ideas. And the current tools do this.
 
There seems to be a lot confusion here about editing. I'll try and explain some of the basics... if anyone wants to listen ; )

First off, NLE gets mentioned a lot, but the truth is that they're all non-linear editors, from iMovie to Avid. Perhaps we mean non-destructive editors? A typical J6P editor, like iMovie, is destructive; when you pull a clip from the pallet to the time line you are REALLY editing your asset, when you cut, it tosses out the bits you aren't using. This means that if you overdo it you'll need to recapture the clip. It also means that if you want to use a clip again you'll need to make a copy of the whole thing, hence, two versions of the same sequence will need twice the storage space.

With non-destructive, like FCP, your assets are stored on a scratch disc (which should be a separate non-fire wire drive) and what you see in your timeline are references to the assets. This is why the same assets can be used in many sequences and why you can easily pull a cut back if you overdo it. All you are really editing is the project file (which should be stored on a separate drive from your scratch disc). The project file, AKA edit decision list, is merely a set of instructions as to how your assets should be utilized. Essentially a list of clip names with I and O points on a timeline. It's very similar to the way HTML instructs a browser to display a website.

Armed with this knowledge, we can be fearless about creating as many sequences as we please, sequences within sequences, as many different versions of a sequence etc. Remember, there is NO data in the timeline itself, it's merely a graphic representation of the contents of the project file, your most valuable asset.

So why use sequences? Sequences are the paragraphs and chapters of your project. Would you write a book in one huge lump? Well, of course, you could but imagine how hard you'd be making life for yourself? There's nothing wrong with dumping a whole video project in one sequence, but oh what a pain. I've just finished a project which has a 20 min and 37 min version of the same thing and I used 9 sequences.

On rendering. Here there seems to be more confusion. Since your assets are never altered, a render file is created when you make adjustments to a clip, add titles, transitions etc. The act of preparing a finished job for printing to DVD or formating for a website is called ENCODING not RENDERING. I'm not being pedantic, but I find some of your posts confusing when you use the wrong terms.

So which editor is best? Industry fact: There are two choices for professional editing: Avid or FCP. Anything else belongs in the 'big kids' section of Toys'r'Us along with AlienWare computers.

I'm a bit of an old timer: retired a few years ago and will turn 50 next month. But I think my ten-cents worth still holds true.

Filmman,
You seem to have confused the hell out of yourself. I'd advise you to go back to basics and read the Quick Start quide:
http://www.amazon.com/Final-Cut-Pro...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215586319&sr=1-2

Adam,
Dude I'd seriously consider either retooling your setup or getting an editor. You went to sooo much trouble. Editing your project in Sony Vegas is like spending hours preparing a gourmet meal and squirting ketchup over it.
Whatever else you do, I'd suggest you hire the best color timer you can afford.. YOU MUST !
I can recommend this guy:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/a...inalcutstudio_eurorscg_20080617_r560-9cie.mov
 
Last edited:
So which editor is best? Industry fact: There are two choices for professional editing: Avid or FCP. Anything else belongs in the 'big kids' section of Toys'r'Us along with AlienWare computers.
Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% false.

The ONLY reason why this is widely believed to be true is that Avid and FCP have been around a lot longer, and old timers like yourself refuse to try anything else. It is impossible to tell what NLE has been used to complete an edit, and one will not "look better" than another. Each has it's pros and cons, as with anything software or computer related.

I use Vegas as it suits my workflow to a tee. It is much more intuitive and provides me with much faster results. It can do 99% of what avid or FCP can do, and a few things they can't. In fact, it's audio tools are FAR superior to any other NLE out there.

A tool that works well for one person may not work well for another.

Dude I'd seriously consider either retooling your setup or getting an editor. You went to sooo much trouble. Editing your precious project in Sony Vegas is like spending hours preparing a grommet meal and squirting ketchup over it.
Click to expand...

Any editor worth his or her salt will know that the person behind the keyboard and mouse is FAR more important than the tools being used. If Adam didn't tell you he used Vegas, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.

I have had clients initially balk at the fact that I Don't use Avid or FCP, and not take me seriously. I then produce a result exceeding their expectation, faster than they thought I would, and they never question my choice again.

I think Adam has proved that there is no singular way to go from point A to point B.
 
I think Adam has proved that there is no singular way to go from point A to point B.
Click to expand...

Adam has proved that throughout this whole insane adventure of his to get this movie made.

I don't wanna seem like a fanboy, but vegas is 'easy', i just bought it one cold day a long time ago and learned on my own, tried that with avid... didn't work out as easy.
 
Maximumshow,

All Adam has proved, at least in regards to editing, is that he has no idea what he is doing. He deserves much respect for putting this project together.

There is a reason why premiere costs twice as much as vegas. And there is a reason why NEITHER application has EVER been used for major productions, and I mean multimillion dollar stuff, not ultra-low budget stuff for kicks. That reason is that they are crap.

One would hope Vegas would have good audio editing, because that's what it is, an AUDIO EDITOR. Video editing was added onto it as an after thought. Final Cut and Avid are for editing film and video. They aren't for audio. Professionals use ProTools for audio, which is made by Avid, or Logic, which is made by Apple. Final Cut Studio includes an advanced audio editor as well, called SoundTrack Pro.

More importantly, in terms of the visuals, Final Cut Studio also includes a $50,000 color correction application, called Color. It was called Final Touch when Apple bought it. You likely don't know any of this, so I'll write, "you're welcome" in advance.

Here's a little history lesson from an old timer. In the late 90's, the software designer of Abobe Premiere left Adobe when they refused to take the application in a new direction (he wanted to build an application suitable for feature-length projects). Macromedia hired him, and he created Final Cut. Avid announced they were dumping the Mac (1998), and Apple bought Final Cut. Fast-forward to the present, and Final Cut users make up 49% of the professional market, Avid is at 22%, and all the toy programs comprise the rest (edius, premiere, vegas, and so on). Avid uses Apple's monitors to advertise their products on their own site, and Avid is sold on Mac's more than Windows-only machines, for obvious reasons (while consumers may not mind the issues with Windows, big-budget, time critical studios and production houses need stuff that is rock solid).

While it is absurd Final Cut Studio is only $1,299, it's even more absurd someone would pay $449 for Vegas. And, yes, it is very tacky that Adobe and Sony added "Pro" to the end of their products to mimic Apple. Avid, at least, has taste. Avid is the pinnacle for the highest-end hardware-software combo. Apple is the outrageous deal in the pro market. If you like Vegas, that's great. But don't spout off nonsense saying it's in the same league as Avid or Final Cut. Feel free to show me a single hollywood blockbuster edited in Vegas. And if you think the reason professional editors use Final Cut and Avid to edit hollywood films is because they are dumb, well, I hear Target has a sale on mirrors this weekend.
 
I use Avid and Vegas. I often need to use Avid when working professionally, because the product is expected to be cut that way. I like Vegas for my personal stuff with the DVX.

I think "Cold Mountain" was the first big feature cut with FCP and I'm not aware of any films with Vegas as the editor. I'm sure its been done, but I don't know about the films. Then again, maybe Adam will break new ground on some level. That's always good for the business.

However, to be fair, nothing has been "proved" at this point. My gut tells me that Adam will do what he's set out to do, and I certainly am excited to see the final product. But the real proof will be on Adam's future films. Will he continue to use Vegas?

Either way, this will be interesting.
 
You likely don't know any of this, so I'll write, "you're welcome" in advance.
Click to expand...

I actually knew everything you spoke of, but thanks anyways.

Cost has NOTHING to do with the quality of a piece of software, and anyone who says the their tool is better because it cost more, is compensating for something. Many people would argue that Linux if far better than Windows, yet it is FREE.

As with many things in life, what the majority of the people believe to be true is often not true at all. Most people believe BOSE is the end all for audio equipment but it is actually crap relative to what is out there. Most people in the "biz" believe Avid or FCP are the only options, when in reality they have been surpassed in many areas for several years now. People like yourself, who speak in absolutes, are inflexible and stubborn.

And, yes, it is very tacky that Adobe and Sony added "Pro" to the end of their products to mimic Apple. Avid, at least, has taste.
Click to expand...

Actually Vegas added "Pro" because they have two different versions. Vegas Movie Studio which is the low end "toy" version, and Vegas Pro 8.

If you like Vegas, that's great. But don't spout off nonsense saying it's in the same league as Avid or Final Cut.
Click to expand...

Vegas IS in the same league as both. Have you even used Vegas, or is your hate based solely on Apple/Avid fanboyism? I for one have used all three, including Premiere, and still choose to use Vegas. I have both FCP and Avid freely available to me for use tomorrow if I like, but I'm not going to.

Feel free to show me a single hollywood blockbuster edited in Vegas. And if you think the reason professional editors use Final Cut and Avid to edit hollywood films is because they are dumb, well, I hear Target has a sale on mirrors this weekend.
Click to expand...

As I said, Vegas is relatively new. People who have been in the business for 30 years are hesitant to switch the tools they are so used to. The next generation of film makers are much more open to change or to new ideas. The market is quickly shifting away from Avid, as products like FCP and Vegas come along because they are WAY cheaper, yet do 99% of what Avid does.
 
Maximumshow,

The video editing version of Vegas came out less than a year later than FCP. I guess you have your own little perception of 'relative' just as you do for 'better'.

"Cost has NOTHING to do with the quality of a piece of software, and anyone who says the their tool is better because it cost more, is compensating for something. Many people would argue that Linux if far better than Windows, yet it is FREE."

Of course price doesn't determine quality, but quality influences the market, which dictates price. The suggested retail of Vegas is $699. Amazon sells it for $446.49. The suggested retail of Final Cut is $1,299, and Amazon sells it for $1,298.49. If Apple charged $2,999 for Final Cut Studio, it would still be a monumental bargain.

Your Linux comparison is great, because Linux is better than Windows, unless you want to edit video. Just like Vegas is better than Final Cut, unless you want to edit video. If you want an audio editor, Vegas is a fine application.

"Actually Vegas added "Pro" because they have two different versions. Vegas Movie Studio which is the low end "toy" version, and Vegas Pro 8."

Wrong. Sony, like Adobe, added "Pro" to confuse consumers into thinking it was like Final Cut Pro. It was called Vegas Pro before they came out with an even lower end version (how could they make a lower end version?).

When asked to name a hollywood film edited on Vegas, you provided none, because there are none. Then go on to make this silly comment:

"As I said, Vegas is relatively new. People who have been in the business for 30 years are hesitant to switch the tools they are so used to."

Final Cut came out in 1999. Vegas Video came out in 2000. They came out within less than a year each other. Many old-time Avid editors have switched to Final Cut. Name one hollywood editor who has switch from Avid to Vegas. There are none.

Again, when it comes to big budget work, there are two suitable solutions, Avid and FCP. When you edit a hollywood picture on Vegas, or when anyone else does for that matter, then you have an argument. Until then, it's nonsense. Independent films that made it to theatrical release have been edited in iMovie, that doesn't mean iMove is a realistic solution for high-end work.

Vegas is for people that want to step up from windows movie maker. Apple makes a stripped version of Final Cut for people like that coming from iMovie, called Final Cut Express, which is $199.

You're missing the bigger picture here, in terms of the total solution. Both Avid and Apple form the foundations for complete solutions, from visual effects, color timing to audio editing. They both offer the software for this, such as Shake and ProTools. Then there is the hardware part of the equation. There are loads of companies that produce specialized hardware made specifically for Final Cut. Vegas does not have a complete integrated system. It is an island app, and a low end one at that.

Just because you don't need the features and power of Final Cut, or Avid, doesn't mean others don't. Everyone has different needs. If Vegas is enough for you, than that is fantastic.

I'm tired of this, so I'll concede that reason why the industry ignored this tool is because it's run by old farts, like me, who are too set in their ways to recognize a revolutionary new innovation like Sony FREAKING Vegas... and that includes Sony themselves who have never cut a picture on it.
 
Last edited:
The next generation of film makers are much more open to change or to new ideas.

Maximumshow,

Walter Murch is, by your standards, old. He has always embraced new tools and techniques; Murch is the editor that helped bring FCP up to the industry standard. This was 2002-2003. So, it's not about age or generations.

If Vegas is equal to Avid and FCP, then most editors, young and old, would readily switch to something easier and cheaper and use Vegas. Change is not difficult for most editors. I actually see more resistance coming from people new to the field.
 
Thanks for the tips on using FCP. This thread has been the most comprehensive discussion of filmmaking to emerge on this type of user groups. It has touched on all the essential and controversial areas of filmmaking.

With respect to Corrado, I'd say Adam will have to claim that he finished the editing on AVID or FCP, because otherwise some distributor might say, "Ohhhhh, you did this on the Vegaaaaaaas!"

Well, I don't think Adam will have trouble replying to that (LOL) but I'd be scared to admit that I edited a $600,000 movie on a lesser editing system.

So it really behooves one to say, "I did the first cut on Vegas and then sent it to AVID" or whatever. I don't know about this sort of upmanship with respect to digital "filmmaking" :-)

Personally I'm holding onto my Upright Moviola. LOL
 
Well, it WAS entertaining...

However, I think the thread has been hijacked enough... so let's just chill... this thread is about Adam's film, not about which NLE is industry standard (which I agree with you HueyNRolf, and you made some good points)

Let's give it back to Adam now, and talk more Corrado!

Adam, are you thinking of getting a website up for the film anytime soon?
 
Well, if a distributor picks up the film, which in the case of Corrado is very likely if not imminent, then would it not be better not to have a website for the movie?

Sometimes distributors prefer to do their own marketing, because they don't wish to work at cross purpose with the filmmaker.

I wonder, Brandon, if you would be willing to share your experience with us regarding this aspect of distribution. You have a pretty well designed website. It's a lot of work and it requires a lot of expertise. I've never had the time or the skill to create such a site as yours, but does it pay off if someone is selling DVDs directly from the website? Or is it more for general PR?

Thanks for your comments. I'm curious to know what Adam thinks about this whole aspect also.
 
First let me say that I would challenge anyone to prove to me that my film was edited on Vegas after watching it. If you can tell me what NLE was used when you watch a film - you have super powers.

It's not as if I'm making an effects heavy Transformers 2 here.

Second, I've said again and again that the colorist I am using works off a davinci machine and expects me to bring him an exported file of the movie, which they will put on tape and color correct. Do you really think he will be able to tell which NLE the file came from??? Do you think he cares??? (he cannot, and does not, I already know the answers to these questions)

Third, what business is it of yours what I edit on, freindo???? (sorry, couldn't resist).

Seriously, I know full well FCP and Avid are industry standard, but honestly, prove to me they are any better based on their specs. I think you'll find their specs are very close.

I don't give a **** what people think about the software. Unless they can point out a legitimate flaw in the software, I'm not interested in any rhetoric. Or what people think.

As far as stating that I don't know what I'm doing - ouch, HueynRolf go get your own thread and pontificate there, amigo. That was rough and uncalled for. Personal attacks when you don't even know the guy is a bad deal.

As far as the site - already paid for it - my web guy is a little slow, but very soon I'll have a full Corrado site. More buzz the better - totally agree with Brandon.
 
well..... wow... why did this thread suddenly get so angry?

Vegas is good as long as you're not trying to produce something with alot of FX (as Adam has stated)

Also, I would watch corrado from just the cut that was not color corrected or anything.

And finally, I would wish to do something as great as adam... alas, I am merely a college student with college responsibilites...

but in other news,

Adam, have you chosen a distributor? or is that still in the works?
 
OH MY GOD! I missed the Vegas vs. FCP Fight!

I've been waiting and waiting for such an opportunity to pipe-in without appearing too trollish.

Anyway, having used both systems, Vegas is leaps and bounds ahead of FCP. Did you hear that? Sure FCP has the flash and the bullet-points on the brochures. But when it get down to the nitty-gritty of editing there's nothing that beats Vegas. It's fast and gets the job done. Period.

If I HAVE TO do a job in FCP I will (after all, I make money from it because my clients pay for my time), but all my own projects are done in Vegas because I don't have time to dick-around with stupid **** and can get down to the serious work of editing.

Oh, man, that felt so good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top