Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: pflower on January 29, 2016, 03:30:18 pm
-
This probably more suited to the Beginner's Forum, but at the risk of ridicule I will take my chances and post here.
Once upon a time when state of the art consisted of mini-DV tapes I was pretty expert in Final Cut Pro. But I haven't touched video in at least 10 years save for one attempt with a GH2 which was fairly painless. I still have FCP 7 (but have pretty much forgotten how to use it efficiently) but now I have a Sony A7ii which will do video in AVCHDS format. Googling a workflow to try and marry the Sony with FCP leads to a lot of links which point me to buying software that will convert to Apple ProRes. I downloaded the trial version of one such apps from Brosoft which did indeed convert. But when opened in FCP7 it shows very distinct horizontal lines wavering across the frame. The video was shot at 25p but the properties from within FCP show that the frame rate is 23.95. Whether that is the source of the problem is unclear. Opening the mp4 file in the ever helpful VCL shows no such problems.
My question is this - is there an easy way to edit A7ii footage in FCP7? If so can someone point me to a tutorial or explanation as to how to do so? Or, for the sake of convenience, would FCPX solve my problems and ignorance?
I am quite prepared to buy FCPX but I am not at all clear as to whether that will work seamlessly with the A7ii. The list of supported cameras does not mention the A7ii - it does mention the A7S-ii with AVCHDS but Googling the A7ii and FCPX just brings up the same links to purchase software that converts to ProRes 422.
Sorry, a really basic question. But does anyone have any pointers or suggestions?
-
FCP X will likely solve the problem you are having since it deals with different formats, frame rates and codecs very elegantly - likely far more elegantly than any other NLE.
BUT (Yes, BIG but)
You will be starting a fairly steep learning curve in the use of FCP X which is unlike any other NLE out there. If you have memories and motor memories of FCP 7 - they need to go straight out the window. If however you want to keep a FCP 7-like workflow, my suggestion is to go to Adobe Premiere.
For a temporary workflow, I would convert all of your AVCHD to ProRes or similar without changing the frame rate. Stay with 25 fps. Edit natively in FCP 7 setting your project timeline and prefs to 25fps.
-
IMO, insisting on FCP7 because you had work on it in the past and are familiar with is the worst posible option. You already see what's happening.
FCP7 is only still relevant for people like B.Cooter in the sense that they are professionals, used to it and a change always means a complete rebuilding of the all studio seats, new learning curves etc...not always posible when in the middle of a stream of work.
But FCP7 is dead and obsolete today. (i don't mean it's bad, it is abandoned)
You'd better put a bit of energy learning right now a contemporary modern software that will be rewarding very soon instead of painfuly converting for fcp7.
As Chris pointed you got FCPX but not similar to others so a bit unique in it's class. However, if it is for you, and you will not work in collaborative, FCPX could be a good option.
but you could also check
- Resolve 12 (if you're very much interested in Color correction, it's an all-in-one) - (on Resolve 12 check closely your computer specs, it is demanding and if you want to do 4K you'll need to pay)
- Adobe PP (to follow what everybody does)
- Lightworks pro on rental (if you're very much interested in the editorial aspect)
So if you don't go FCPX the most sensible, predictible, and less costly in terms of learning curve is surely Adobe PP as Chris pointed.
PS: working natively on AVCHD is far from being really the best idea. Yes it is nice to be able to drag-and-drop your files without further issues, but this codec is a mess in editorial and uses a lot of CPU.
So the dilema of using an appropriate editing codec will remain. This is why Prores enters into action because it suits capture, editing and color. AVCHD does not.
The success of Prores resides in its universality. AVCHD is a creation built for consummer cams that is a compromise of a compromise. It allows to "shoot big on the cheap" but then you're stucked
with something in post that is nightmare.
Does it mean that your AVCHD codec will not be workable? No. All the software I mentionned will take natively. But it means that you'll have very Little room in post and your image will fall appart for a yes or a no. (so you'll need to nail it in capture)
To use a // with still imagery, think AVCHD as is you were shooting JPEG at 5 or 6 quality. And Prores like a Tiff file.
Is it better a 5 quality JPEG at 4K or a robust Tiff at HD or 2K ? That's the buzz. No definitive answer can be given and depends very much on the needs of each one.
-
While I am relatively new to the modern, digital video realm and NLE software in general ... I have been a full time professional still photographer (mostly photojournalism) for over 40 years.
In that time I have seen a lot of tools come and go. While I only used FCP 7 sparingly, in the employ of another, I must say that without a doubt FCP X is the absolute very best investment of $299 I have ever made. What I did't like about FCP 7 ... seemed to be ironed out with FCP X. Along with the several very meaningful updates to FCP X at no additional cost.
Two years ago when I was deciding which NLE to adopt, I worked a trial of both FCP X and Premier Pro. FCP X won hands down. It may go against the grain of what more experienced editors may expect from an NLE, but I really like the manner in which it handles editing. When compared to other affordable options, I must say I get far more done ... and more quickly ... with FCP X than any other option I looked at. The price point is a pure bonus.
Most of my work is on extremely tight deadlines and FCP X really keeps my stress level in check.
Not to mention Motion 5 is a spectacular asset and a true production partner for FCP X for only $50.
-
I use video from an A7Rii in FCP-X with no problems.
As others have said, FCP-X is not like any other editing software out there (except perhaps iMovie, but don't let that fool you. We've edited indie feature films on FCP-X).
If you are used to and like FCP-7 then Premiere Pro is the way to go.
If you are only an occasional video editor and are prepared to spend a weekend letting go of the way you used to edit and working through a Ripple training course with FCP-X, or just plunging in and giving it a go, you may find it is a MUCH more intuitive way to edit. I certainly find it much faster for assembling rough cuts and doing basic colour correction. (Magic Bullet Studio is a good investment too for anything more complex).
As Fred says, where it falls down somewhat is in highly collaborative environments- but if you are working in a highly collaborative environment with sound guys, colourists, assistant editors, etc. I'd just use whatever they tell you to. (The big boys are all still on AVID for some inexplicable reason- it feels like editing from the stone age to me. But I can see it lets everyone work on their own little bits more easily).
The proof of the pudding: my technophobe actor wife swore blind she could NEVER edit videos, back in the days of FCP7 and PPro.
She learnt FCP-X in a weekend and now edits 75% of our video footage, including shooting and editing her own year-long documentary projects.
Our 18-year-old intern picked enough of FCP-X up to edit a short film for a festival for us in a week- including learning FCP-X as she went. She's now at film school and roundly cursing the obtuse relics running AVID in the industry-standard editing bays.
So yes I'd say FCP-X is worth a punt ;)
Cheers, Hywel
-
I wish I could learn fcp X. I've done two edits in it and I can't erase 10 years of knowledge no matter how hard I try.
I've also gone to premier, but I hate the susbscription model as right now I'm out of studio and can't connect and Adobe can't find my log in, which is crazy cause they keep billing me every month.
I've known still photographers that went to fcpX and in a weekend learned to do a base edit, but for me it's just a fright.
Once I get the premier thing worked out next week, I'll probably stop on fcp 7, though I'll do it with a slight tear in my eyes.
IMO
BC
Coot, I'm quite surprised that you don't seem to take into
Consideration Resolve 12, in the sense that you are already
Vastly used to its interface.
That would avoid to embrasse PP that you don't like.
Why? Because you don't see it ready, still a work in progress?
James, IMO, you should not use a software you don't like
(PP) because it's going to be your mate for many years.
It's a bit like trying to force yourself to feel attracted for
A lady who does not move you...you can't force those things.
Maybe, as you are not in emergency, waiting Resolve to evolve
And being more editorial friendly, no?
-
Im editing in free davinci resolve.. just like FCP7 but it works and has the best colour of any NLE
-
Ain't surprised about what you said with editirial.
It is way more easy to find good colorists, but
The editorial crowd is more rare (like the sound techs)
To find and the good onces are ultra busy and expensive.
An editor is like the drummer of a band. And all bands will
Tell you: the most difficult to find are the right drummers.
Most work I see screw the edito but generaly have superb
Color work. This is specialy true in advertising because
An editor has to be a bit of a musician, a writter, a storyteller,
A designer. A person without a natural sense of tempos, music
Rythm and spacial understanding can not become a great
Editor.
Most mistake I see in advert is that they got good shooting,
Great color, but the music ends to be out of context, as if
It was a copy-paste, just to fill the blank.
Also, most do not know about fashion, couture etc...and
We got those "out-of-context" final products. And thst is
Due to the editorial part, the weaker on the chain.
-
Talking about editorial,
One of the reasons I pointed that LW is the editor's NLE
Is because it is the only one that allows you
To use spacially the footage as if there were
Cartoon vignetes. No other NLE is bringing such
Capability.
Imo, the editing needs a cartoon or storyboarding
Capabilities-implementation.
It is not thought for editors the fact that the footage
Is organized into bins, that are rigid and then a timeline.
Editing needs a table, a space in wich you organize and
Reorganize the elements, exactly like in a newspaper
Editorial.
In all NLE, you do not have an organic and easy representation
Of the footage, but metadatas orientated, wich is also
Really important but not enough.
Then the sacro-saint timeline as the core...
In LW, the timeline is each clip's timeline and can be switched
To record (active) or not wherever you place your clip into
A spacial working area (like a real table). This capability,
The fact that there are no differences between clip and edit and
Timelines only exists in LW and it is the reason why so many
Hollywood top editors are using it. It is the editor's NLE.
I'm not saying it's the best as there is no "best" but depends
On each one's needs and approach. But yes what I do affirm
Is that if you are very much into the editing and work seriously
A week on it, you'll can not use something else after. And
That, I can guarantee. If editing is not your priority, there are
Others very good options out there.
For example, I see no point using LW if your work is advert
Or short form. It would work of course but you may not take
Advantage of its specialness. If you do long form, go for it.
-
I took the plunge and bought FCPX. Thinking about it i opened up a 90 minute project I had done some 4 years ago on FCP 7 and realised that I couldn't remember how or why I had done what I did do (although the final product was rather good). It struck me that I would have to go through a complete re-learning process on FCP7 plus all kinds of difficulties in transcoding AVCHDS to work with it and incorporate other footage. So better to go with the flow. My first impressions are that it is reasonably intuitive to do straightforward assemblies. But there are conceptual problems that arise over Libraries, Events and Projects which are not immediately obvious (I am familiar with the concept of keeping media on external drives, accessed by FCP7 which then saves a "project" file with references to that media which can be backed up and archived. I can't quite get my head around the new paradigm. But I am working on that.
I have bought a book by Edgar Rothermich which seems to answer the obvious questions. And there are a lot of little YouTube videos available which again are helpful. But I would appreciate any suggestions as to other books and or tutorials that I should look at.
Thanks for all the responses.
Philip
I use video from an A7Rii in FCP-X with no problems.
As others have said, FCP-X is not like any other editing software out there (except perhaps iMovie, but don't let that fool you. We've edited indie feature films on FCP-X).
If you are used to and like FCP-7 then Premiere Pro is the way to go.
If you are only an occasional video editor and are prepared to spend a weekend letting go of the way you used to edit and working through a Ripple training course with FCP-X, or just plunging in and giving it a go, you may find it is a MUCH more intuitive way to edit. I certainly find it much faster for assembling rough cuts and doing basic colour correction. (Magic Bullet Studio is a good investment too for anything more complex).
As Fred says, where it falls down somewhat is in highly collaborative environments- but if you are working in a highly collaborative environment with sound guys, colourists, assistant editors, etc. I'd just use whatever they tell you to. (The big boys are all still on AVID for some inexplicable reason- it feels like editing from the stone age to me. But I can see it lets everyone work on their own little bits more easily).
The proof of the pudding: my technophobe actor wife swore blind she could NEVER edit videos, back in the days of FCP7 and PPro.
She learnt FCP-X in a weekend and now edits 75% of our video footage, including shooting and editing her own year-long documentary projects.
Our 18-year-old intern picked enough of FCP-X up to edit a short film for a festival for us in a week- including learning FCP-X as she went. She's now at film school and roundly cursing the obtuse relics running AVID in the industry-standard editing bays.
So yes I'd say FCP-X is worth a punt ;)
Cheers, Hywel
-
...or tutorials that I should look at.
Thanks for all the responses.
Philip
https://library.creativecow.net/video-tutorials/fcpxtechnique
https://library.creativecow.net/neil_andy/FCPX-Multicam-1/1
https://library.creativecow.net/mcguire_sam/FCPX-Match-EQ/1
http://fcpx.tv/
http://www.fcp.co/?view=featured
There is also Larry Lordan who sank into it and never emerged back since. Check Larry Jordan like those: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=larry+jordan+fcpx
watch particularly this video that will explain the reason to transcode to Prores: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuoN8MlQJ8
Best luck.
And keep the faith...the road ain't that long. If you put energy on the learning in a week or 2 you're done for the big part. Hey, a NLE is not riding the space shuttle.
-
... I would appreciate any suggestions as to other books and or tutorials that I should look at.
Thanks for all the responses.
Philip
I have taken advantage of the previously mention resources and really appreciate the free short tutorials from the guys at Ripple Training. The 'Under 5 Minutes' series for FCP X and Motion 5 come in handy. They show you a specific item without putting to much of hole in your schedule.
https://www.youtube.com/user/rippleguy/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/rippleguy/videos)
-
As Fred says, transcode to prores. Whether you like it or not FCPX is always transcoding unless you keep it at proxy level. Yes it can be fast but using mixed codecs, framing kind os messes it up and dropping raw footage in like RED Raw with decent compression slows it up on any system.
The best way to learn it is to bring an expert in for two days and just run through two complex edits. Not long form linear, but soft firm with graphics, especially round tripping to motion.
FCPX would be a lot easier if they'd kept some of the naming intact from standard editorial systems but instead they changed steering wheel to back seat, gear shift to steering wheel.
IMO
BC
I must admit that I really like more and more Prores.
I know, I've been barking in the past because Apple
Kept it proprietary but in the end it has never been
An hassle in Windows while the softwares I use
Are bundled with so you don't even notice that
It is proprietary.
IMO, all cameras should shoot in Prores directly
With choice of flavours.
I beleive this is partly the success of the Alexa.
The only Raw workflow that I find well implemented
Is Red. Because you know what you are doing and
It is very easy to strip the all thing and revert to XYZ
If required. And the cineon curve is cristal clear.
Also, Red does not stress the workstation that much.
But apart from Red, Prores is indeed the very best
Option. Great in capture, great in editing and great in color
In the highest flavours.
Ps: what I find crap in FCPX is the look of the
Interface: very 70'ish mixed with japanese manga.
A bit toyish.
-
Tell ya something funny.
A friend of mine works in fcpX.
He's always going on about it to the point I want to gaff tape him to a chair.
This week he went to a Baselight seminar and was texting me and sending screen shots.
He texted a screen shot and said "this is great" When you use baselight it makes fcpX look like fcp7.
I told him, look up the specs. They only make it for Avid, Nuke and FCP7, not FCPX.
He was like uh, uh, well maybe uh.
IMO
BC
Lol...
Baselight is still covering FCP7 true. That seems to proove that many FCP7 users have never switched yet.
I tested the Baselight for Avid at the time I used Avid (my pre-Lightworks era) and it was really good. Actually I still have a Media Composer with a Baselight plug-in in an old Workstation
that I can't unplug because got on it a software that is obsolete and can't go on Windows 8 but that they still use in certain printing houses I work with.
The Baselight plug-ins for NLEs aren't of course the standalone version ultra expensive but they do a great job indeed and the interface is very much "photographic" designed if I might say.
But with Resolve I don't see the Baselight point except that instead of roudtripping it's all automatized, wich can indeed fits in some's workflows.
I beleive as long as you got the roundtripping hassle-free you could keep going with FCP7 many more years without problems, included if your clients want 8K (wich I hope they won't bite on this nonsense)
because in the end cutting is cutting.
After all, replacing in Resolve by the higher res medias is what's been done for years and years until the "edit native" mantra contaminated everything. (Do we really want to edit natively the higher Red included with the Rocket? that's a bit playing with fire)
Frankly, I don't see a problem editing with Prores-proxies in an old FCP or Avid and then replacing the medias at the conform stage. It's manual, yes, but when you do that 10 times a day in the end it's like going to the lu.
I think that we live in an accelerated world that tends to sell us "upgrade to the latest or die". So if we'd follow this spirit your R1 is just good for the garbage and you should just buy the lastest Red cams otherwise it ain't cool and you'd loose magic properties of the new generations? All that is marketing.
And the fun part is that the latest "Graeme" color science is available regardless of the camera involved. (and who cares about the latest coulour science to be honest?)
Remember Telma edited the Scorcese movies with an old LW version, way much less powerfull and sophisticated than the today's released product and it worked! (actually, it seems that the dudes who change all the time to the latest are in fact the non-professionals).
I think that whatever modern camera like the BMs if you can shoot Prores and avoid like the plague those ultra-compressed AVCHD and Co the footage will be brought in FCP7 without transcoding hassles.
In fact, that obliges to a rational approach: I still don't get the point why all cameras aren't shooting or Prores or DNx but instead of that weired oscur codecs??
That's what's lovely about the Pocket camera or the Arri, Prores means it can be inserted in whatever NLE (included FCP7) and colored in whatever color suite without the need of transcodes. What-you-shoot-is-what-you-need (I should patent that: WYSIWYN)
FCP7 still has long years of editing ahead. No rush is necessary IMO. In the momento R.R (your company) does his own movies using FCP7 is perfectly doable. It would be different in the case you were an editorial house and edit other's Works then yes FCP7 would now be an obstacle. But then you would not use either FCPX. (similar in fact to what did a friend of mine, profesional musician. He was on Avid and got fed-up and switched to Reaper. He told me that if he had to mix other's Works he would have been obliged to keep Avid, but as he Works for him he had the choice)
-
I hate editing.
However I've noticed Resolve on my MBP just barfs with my GH4 files, where FCPX is usable.
As I'm not a "pro" I won't buy a big config edit station and have to use what I own ..
Edmund
Lol...
Baselight is still covering FCP7 true. That seems to proove that many FCP7 users have never switched yet.
I tested the Baselight for Avid at the time I used Avid (my pre-Lightworks era) and it was really good. Actually I still have a Media Composer with a Baselight plug-in in an old Workstation
that I can't unplug because got on it a software that is obsolete and can't go on Windows 8 but that they still use in certain printing houses I work with.
The Baselight plug-ins for NLEs aren't of course the standalone version ultra expensive but they do a great job indeed and the interface is very much "photographic" designed if I might say.
But with Resolve I don't see the Baselight point except that instead of roudtripping it's all automatized, wich can indeed fits in some's workflows.
I beleive as long as you got the roundtripping hassle-free you could keep going with FCP7 many more years without problems, included if your clients want 8K (wich I hope they won't bite on this nonsense)
because in the end cutting is cutting.
After all, replacing in Resolve by the higher res medias is what's been done for years and years until the "edit native" mantra contaminated everything. (Do we really want to edit natively the higher Red included with the Rocket? that's a bit playing with fire)
Frankly, I don't see a problem editing with Prores-proxies in an old FCP or Avid and then replacing the medias at the conform stage. It's manual, yes, but when you do that 10 times a day in the end it's like going to the lu.
I think that we live in an accelerated world that tends to sell us "upgrade to the latest or die". So if we'd follow this spirit your R1 is just good for the garbage and you should just buy the lastest Red cams otherwise it ain't cool and you'd loose magic properties of the new generations? All that is marketing.
And the fun part is that the latest "Graeme" color science is available regardless of the camera involved. (and who cares about the latest coulour science to be honest?)
Remember Telma edited the Scorcese movies with an old LW version, way much less powerfull and sophisticated than the today's released product and it worked! (actually, it seems that the dudes who change all the time to the latest are in fact the non-professionals).
I think that whatever modern camera like the BMs if you can shoot Prores and avoid like the plague those ultra-compressed AVCHD and Co the footage will be brought in FCP7 without transcoding hassles.
In fact, that obliges to a rational approach: I still don't get the point why all cameras aren't shooting or Prores or DNx but instead of that weired oscur codecs??
That's what's lovely about the Pocket camera or the Arri, Prores means it can be inserted in whatever NLE (included FCP7) and colored in whatever color suite without the need of transcodes. What-you-shoot-is-what-you-need (I should patent that: WYSIWYN)
FCP7 still has long years of editing ahead. No rush is necessary IMO. In the momento R.R (your company) does his own movies using FCP7 is perfectly doable. It would be different in the case you were an editorial house and edit other's Works then yes FCP7 would now be an obstacle. But then you would not use either FCPX. (similar in fact to what did a friend of mine, profesional musician. He was on Avid and got fed-up and switched to Reaper. He told me that if he had to mix other's Works he would have been obliged to keep Avid, but as he Works for him he had the choice)
-
I hate editing.
However I've noticed Resolve on my MBP just barfs with my GH4 files, where FCPX is usable.
As I'm not a "pro" I won't buy a big config edit station and have to use what I own ..
Edmund
Maybe because of Resolve being primary
A color app on wich they add later editing
Capabilities is the cause.
All dedicated color apps are really computer
Specs dependant while a NLE always works
Smoother on most workstations.
Resolve always had the reputation to require
Higher computers performances (and prefers certain
Brands cards) but this
Is in fact also true for other similar apps.
Ps: a standalone Baselight or Nucoda or Scratch and Co
Are completly meaningless if you are not a professional
Colorist. The success of Resolve stands in its low price
And free version. It gives a lot for the buck so everyone
Could access it as long as you are compliant with its requiered specs.
For 99% of the work (mean by that all that is not cinema
And high-end advert) the color plug-ins that come with
The NLEs (or compatible with) are just more than enough.
Things like Speedgrade for PP or Baselight plug-ins etc...
But as Resolve costs so little having a high-end color
Tool pedigree, it explains why so many
People are using it.
If you dig into the dedicated colorists forums, you realise
That Resolve ain't necesarly the holy grail for those dudes,
Who still prefer pure color apllications and couldn't care less of editing
Capabilities bundled with at the last minute. But those are
Specialists used to work in highly collaborative environements.
I'm sure that there should have color plugins
For FCPX with presetted looks that can avoid
Long hours in a colour suite. Things like Boris stuff etc...
So you apply a preset look and all you have to do is just
Finetune.
But the big downsides of the NLEs are their notorious unhability
To work with sophisticated masks+trackers And just for that,
The use of an external color app is often necessary.
Fcpx, like others, does not have such capabilty and therefore
You'd need something else soon or later.
And working with polygon masks and trackers is not a
Luxury reserved for the big gurus. You'll often be in the
Situation where you need to isolate a face, a dress etc...
And apply a specific CC just on that. In those common
Scenarios, the NLES (fcpx included) are useless.
Now...there is another way: using a compo app like Fusion
Or Nuke or the 100% free Natron and bypass a color app. This is a different animal-workflow
BUT...
Compo apps are incredibly light and would work
On laptops just like a NLE. Only the render time
Could be long but you won't crash.
The only thing is that they do not like those AVCHD
Kind of codecs. (in fact nothing like them, nor the NLEs)
And you need to bring them proper files like tiff, open exr,
Image sequence like.
Image sequences are just heavy but do not requiere
Complex decodifications from the ultra compressed
Codecs that stress the CPU.
-
If I understand your workflow it goes something like this:
(for Red)
-1) you do a pre-color correction in RCX
-2) you generate prores "proxies" from RCX that you'll use in FCP7
-3) edit
-4) roundtripp to Resolve where you relink to the Raw files and color final.
Is that correct?
For other formats you might use (GH etc...) I suppose that you have to transcode the all to Prores also.
-
Fred,
Thank you for taking the time to educate me.
As it is spring, I am starting to think mini-documentary again. I think I will do short interviews and single takes, cut them. Life is too short for all this complicated stuff. Or rather, maybe, just maybe, there still remains space for a short rough visual story.
Edmund
Maybe because of Resolve being primary
A color app on wich they add later editing
Capabilities is the cause.
All dedicated color apps are really computer
Specs dependant while a NLE always works
Smoother on most workstations.
Resolve always had the reputation to require
Higher computers performances (and prefers certain
Brands cards) but this
Is in fact also true for other similar apps.
Ps: a standalone Baselight or Nucoda or Scratch and Co
Are completly meaningless if you are not a professional
Colorist. The success of Resolve stands in its low price
And free version. It gives a lot for the buck so everyone
Could access it as long as you are compliant with its requiered specs.
For 99% of the work (mean by that all that is not cinema
And high-end advert) the color plug-ins that come with
The NLEs (or compatible with) are just more than enough.
Things like Speedgrade for PP or Baselight plug-ins etc...
But as Resolve costs so little having a high-end color
Tool pedigree, it explains why so many
People are using it.
If you dig into the dedicated colorists forums, you realise
That Resolve ain't necesarly the holy grail for those dudes,
Who still prefer pure color apllications and couldn't care less of editing
Capabilities bundled with at the last minute. But those are
Specialists used to work in highly collaborative environements.
I'm sure that there should have color plugins
For FCPX with presetted looks that can avoid
Long hours in a colour suite. Things like Boris stuff etc...
So you apply a preset look and all you have to do is just
Finetune.
But the big downsides of the NLEs are their notorious unhability
To work with sophisticated masks+trackers And just for that,
The use of an external color app is often necessary.
Fcpx, like others, does not have such capabilty and therefore
You'd need something else soon or later.
And working with polygon masks and trackers is not a
Luxury reserved for the big gurus. You'll often be in the
Situation where you need to isolate a face, a dress etc...
And apply a specific CC just on that. In those common
Scenarios, the NLES (fcpx included) are useless.
Now...there is another way: using a compo app like Fusion
Or Nuke or the 100% free Natron and bypass a color app. This is a different animal-workflow
BUT...
Compo apps are incredibly light and would work
On laptops just like a NLE. Only the render time
Could be long but you won't crash.
The only thing is that they do not like those AVCHD
Kind of codecs. (in fact nothing like them, nor the NLEs)
And you need to bring them proper files like tiff, open exr,
Image sequence like.
Image sequences are just heavy but do not requiere
Complex decodifications from the ultra compressed
Codecs that stress the CPU.
-
Fred,
Yes and no.
It depends on the project.
Mostly I start with a pleasing grade out of resolve, output in 2k and 4k. Apply kind of a custom lut or better put medium grade that has a little more film like depth, without totally crushing the blacks and trying to protect the highlights.
If it's a multi-cam shoot we usually shoot those scenes with REDs because it's very easy to match tone, look, color, wb, either in resolve or Cine-x.
If I have mixed footage, i.e. Sony uhd, RED 4k, Canons, we do our best to make them match where it's not obvious that we switched cameras. Everything goes out in Prores 444.
I only use cine-x for RED footage if I shot on the limit of 1200 asa, or needs to hold challenged highlights.
But usually I find Resolve to have a superior color engine and every edit I do gets touched by resolve in some way.
Then I edit in fcp7 in 2k., which is relatively fast as long as you run internal ssds, have a medium amount of ram, 16gb for powerbooks, more for desktops (even though fcp only uses 4gb) because it allows you to move back and forth from photoshop for graphics to fcp without overtaxing the machine.
We set up fcp 7 not with proxy files, but with the deepest 2k prores files we can produce, put sequence settings at 50% render and draft mode. Then rendering time is fast and actually has a very small effect in time usage, until your at a final locked edit.
When the edit is locked depending (on the edit), I usually send an xml to resolve (minus graphics), to finish the look of the full clips, and return the 2k xml back to fcp 7 for finish and conforming.
If 4k is required, wenjust duplicate the final locked sequence in 7, reconnect that media with the finished 4k footage and render out.
Contrary to popular believe, FCP 7 will accept uhd and 4k footage. You do a few workarounds, but they're fast and not complicated, if you understand how to paste attributes.
Now long form really depends on the project.
Usually it's close to what I wrote above, other than I will go back the Raws and master footage after a light correct/match in resolve.
If time is not available to transcode everything with slight corrections, like 180 minutes of scheduled final edits, I just transcode everything to prores 444 then go back into resolve in the originals for the final look.
(BTW: I'm not suggesting anyone move to any NLE, I'm just explaining what works for us.)
My reasons for fcp7 are simple. First if I could just buy premier rather than deal with the cloud, I'd have already moved. It's not that far from fcp7, has a slight learning curve and works kind of fast, (not blazing) but faster than fcp 7 though not as stable.
The issues I have with the adobe cc cloud, as I go back and forth from LA to London regularly and Adobe seems to not recognize our account purchases. This happens every time, so I'm just grow weary of placing a call, going through the whole thing, then being told that my best bet is to buy another subscription.
It's not the money, it's just the principle.
The most important reason for using fcp 7 is not my long experience with it, it's because today it works on all of my machines. 4 powerbooks, three 5.1 stations, three of the latest imacs all running operating systems from snow leopard to Yosemite, I have multiple licenses so I'm not overstepping if we're running multiple stations.
Will I move systems. Sure, just because the world has moved and round tripping for 4k conforms is time consuming, but honestly if you go outside for effects, colouring and conforming, it really doesn't matter what you edit in as long as your footage is prepped well.
IMO
BC
James,
Many thanks for this very detailled description.
Very interesting indeed.
I often learn more in Lu-la on motion work than in dedicated
Forums.
Cheers.
-
Fred,
Your welcome.
I really believe that today it's possible that photoshop could be a go to system for color grading, compositing, tracking and even simple linear editing.
I'm almost positive that photoshop could adapt a mask as the subject moves with exact tracking, or even allow much more creative control in color, tone and look.
I just think Adobe like most in the electronic world are so use to having a separate program for each dedicated function, that development gets somewhat stagnant.
Same with lightroom. Why not just basic controls as in stills with the ability to key frame. I think lightroom for footage would dominate the grading market.
IMO
BC
I don't see in today's marketplace how softwares like Mistika,
Pablo or Nucoda will survive for very long.
I've been asking Editshare to consider a partnership with
One of those in building a plug-in just like Baselight in
The spirit you said: mask-tracking + basic controls with
Sophisticate color engine. This sort of partnership could avoid
Those companies to end in bankruptcy soon. Will they
Listen? I doubt it.
Resolve color engine is very good but the interface
Just drives me crazy. I hate it because it is dead rigid.
It is: adapts yourself to the software'design instead of:
The software'design adapts itself to your workstyle.
Then the frenchies with their Sratch did better in that aspect
But, being french and arrogants, they could not resist to an oversophistication
And some fancy mouse behaviours that are more useless
Than really efficient.
According to most colourists, the holly grail seems to
Be the standalone Baselight wich costs a fortune if colour
Ain't your core business.
We're again in the very same as always: no ideal.
Yes...I'm barking...lol
-
"It's not the money, it's just the principle."
+1
If I didn´t somewhat enjoy this I would do something else.
What I hate about video is the complexity since coming from a straight-laced photography background I feel like editing video is same as editing photos only dealing with 25+ images flying past per second instead of just one to hang on the wall is a headache.
for this reason like Cooter I stick with the editing program I learned when I was young enough to learn something new that is Premiere. Now I am not so young I avoid changing horses unless there is a VERY compelling reason to do so that is not so often, since after all editing is just editing and what matters most is the decision-making about what to do rather than which button to press.
If I had to hand over what I filmed to an editor to use as a mattress to do hand-springs on I would probably not want to film though as it is I enjoy editing what I shoot just as a home handy man enjoys hanging his own wall paper not much difference actually.
I guess if you are doing this for a CLIENT with EXPECTATIONS who is paying a LOT OF MONEY then you have to be more serious about editing that would not be much fun.
Here (https://youtu.be/w5cTgYD1kjo) is my latest attempt.
-
"It's not the money, it's just the principle."
+1
If I didn´t somewhat enjoy this I would do something else.
What I hate about video is the complexity since coming from a straight-laced photography background I feel like editing video is same as editing photos only dealing with 25+ images flying past per second instead of just one to hang on the wall is a headache.
for this reason like Cooter I stick with the editing program I learned when I was young enough to learn something new that is Premiere. Now I am not so young I avoid changing horses unless there is a VERY compelling reason to do so that is not so often, since after all editing is just editing and what matters most is the decision-making about what to do rather than which button to press.
If I had to hand over what I filmed to an editor to use as a mattress to do hand-springs on I would probably not want to film though as it is I enjoy editing what I shoot just as a home handy man enjoys hanging his own wall paper not much difference actually.
I guess if you are doing this for a CLIENT with EXPECTATIONS who is paying a LOT OF MONEY then you have to be more serious about editing that would not be much fun.
Here (https://youtu.be/oC4hH33DHoU) is my latest attempt.
Done with FCP7 or FCPX? It looks good.
James is right IMO in the sense that we have a gap uncovered
In what video is concerned: the use of a traditional photo
Editor program like with track+mask would suit
For certain type of works. (but not all). A sort of lightroom or PS
For video.
BUT...that would also mean a standardization in terms
Of formats that we are far from enjoying in motion.
Talking of still, apart from each manufacturer Raw sauce,
Because of course it was given very few would embrasse
DNG just like it also happened in motion,
The rest is very much standardized unlike in motion wich
Remains a superb mess.
What do we have? .PSD and .PSB for retouching and .TIF for
Archiving, print and .JPEG for internet etc...
In motion that is not the case.
Just take Coot's example: different camera brands within a same
Shooting that obliges to handle different files and
Behaviours to match and have consistency.
If all his cams were shooting let's say Prores of a same
Flavour, that would simllify the workflow big time. But...
And none does I.S. why not all cameras with an open EXR
Format? Because it remains huge! But storage is cheap.
Digital motion is still in its infancy compared to still photography.
But a PS or LR for motion would not be enough anyway.
It would suits short form advertising where the look is
King over the story. But for feature film it would be
Absolutly horrible having to cut on something that is
Not Avid like or Lightworks like.
Therefore I think that the oath is not to copy still
Phoyography softwares but more to add capabilities
To the NLEs as well as simplifying the tasks.
-
MP4 edited with Adobe Premiere CS4 & After Effects CS4
-
MP4 edited with Adobe Premiere CS4 & After Effects CS4
Hey...I still use my PS CS4! Never had the need to upgrade
So far.
-
Hey...I still use my PS CS4! Never had the need to upgrade
So far.
they say old is gold - though maybe change once in a while is also not a bad thing?
bit of a detour from the subject of this thread but anyways comments elsewhere like "4k is here and even if you still work in 1080, down res'd 4k looks miles ahead of native 1080 footage" make me think (too much) though probably better to focus more on other stuff like real life than this. Unless of course (sigh) its true...
at least no plans for now to revert to a VHS cuts-only editing system.
-
they say old is gold - though maybe change once in a while is also not a bad thing?
bit of a detour from the subject of this thread but anyways comments elsewhere like "4k is here and even if you still work in 1080, down res'd 4k looks miles ahead of native 1080 footage" make me think (too much) though probably better to focus more on other stuff like real life than this. Unless of course (sigh) its true...
at least no plans for now to revert to a VHS cuts-only editing system.
Well, 4k is IMO only usefull (so far until the broadcast 4k standart takes place) for reframing.
It is true that 4k downsampled to HD gives a more detailed imagery....BUT...is a more surgical imagery necessarly better?
Or...are people spending their day counting the leaves in this tree they can isolate?
If you do fashion and beauty better have the very best stylists and MUAs otherwise you see everything shockingly awfull.
And for feature, apart from the Marvel's special FX kind of soupe for tech whores, 4K gives actually less humanity and proximity.
Tell you a story: I had a working meeting with a middle size company wich I'm working with. The company AD told us this: "we want to drop down all footage resolution because we hired a studdy that showed clearly that people responds way more to the product with snap-mobile like filming...and feel not so close when elaborate ultra definition looks. So we decided to film with I.phones actually". Not kidding. They don't want to hear anymore about Alexas and Reds but bet "instagram" kind of look in motion with square reframing and relatively low-res sells best.
If you sell Lamborghinis you'd need 4k, 10k, 50000k because the target is the alpha male wealphy perfectionist and it's tech. But...a Tampax advert for the beta girl is probably better in instagram...
-
So Megyn Kelly would use an iphone to film Donald but he would prefer 4K for selfies?
-
So Megyn Kelly would use an iphone to film Donald but he would prefer 4K for selfies?
Lol!
What I don't get (I honestly don't), is that we seem to live in
A full contradictory world.
For one side, the pixel race, people completly obsessed with 4k mantras and more at the cost of a serious complication within the workflow,
And then, it's a selfies, facebook instagram culture.
Squared formats, easy look filters (preferably vintage), quick, no hassle. Social media culture goes against the
Pixel race.
My bet is that the only dudes who are actualy concerned and worry about footage resolution and details are only us: the shooters. The audience, our "target", couldn't care less.
-
. . . creative, thoughtful production and well crafted content wins.
heck my computer doesn´t like the links to your movies but if the rest of your website is anything to go by anything is possible :-/
-
I hear this "reality" stuff all the time. From client's, public, crew.
Everyone talks about social, real, connection with the audience, believable vehicles.
There is nothing new about "real". There is something new about turning out mediocre work and then saying it's good because it's real, or saying we don't want professional production because nobody believes it.
That's just not true.
This was edited by an editor I know, produced 9 years ago. I didn't shoot this, but actually love it.
http://russellrutherfordgroup.com/6_m_football.mov
I'ts Shot on 16mm film (which might make a difference), maybe could be shot on a phone, though it wouldn't have the look and sound.
But it's real, has real quotes, real people, real locations, real heart.
It also has talented but limited production, a good script, well selected voice over excellent storyline.
And btw: I'm not writing this because I'm afraid that all I've learned will become redundant or not needed because in real paid advertising or entertainment . . . creative, thoughtful production and well crafted content wins.
Hell I don't care if I shoot with an I phone or xt, but then again, if the I phone looks like crap, takes 4 hours a clip to fix, then I have zero desire to work that way.
If using a small camera or phone looks unique, or better yet fits the story, I'm in and I can think of a few scenarios where phone production would work, many, many more where it won't.
So producing something in a real situation is not unique. Producing something that someone wants to watch is a lot more difficult and the camera to some extent does matter.
But it has to be kept in context. This was a home movie I did a year ago during a family reunion. It's shot with a 70d, out of camera, quick edit and only produced for the participants . . . my family.
I probably didn't shoot more than 15 minutes of footage, if that, because I didn't want to be the family documentarian, I wanted to enjoy the day.
My family loved it, it meant something to them, but I'm under no impression that it would mean anything to anyone else, because it's personal and it really shouldn't.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/final_new_branfels_mac_web_play.mov
IMO
BC
Hi James,
I agree with in all you said actually. Maybe I expressed myself badly.
The idea I wanted to share is that independently of the reality we see, some brands have ADs who build their strategies based in part on studdies. What I'm seeing from the companies side is in fact the same as we see in most imagery forums: a tendency to pull the string to both extremes.
For one side they tell you: "we don't want Alexas any more but i.phones and no actors but you and me" (the social media mantra)
and for the other side other tell you: "we want 4,6,8ks and above..." (the Marvel mantra)
Then, in the end, they will say: "we want 4k sophisticate and then an unsophisticate simulation of the same in lowres as if it was filmed by the next door girl"
wich means that the only way is that the filming always starts with the highest possible mediums (because we can downgrade but not the other way) and then they bark when they see the bills of hiring the Arri crew for an hour of filming and
so...
next meeting, they are back again with "we don't want that because it's too expensive and i.phones will do the job"... "we hired a studdy...blablá....social media....blablablá...instagram videos...."
then...the next day they strike back: "is there something higher than 4K?" (ya know...my nefew has a 4K Sony camera so profesionals should therfore be already at 10Ks...)
then....
Honestly they don't f....g know where they are (the ADs), don't they?
And James, not to be negative but many are scared of the time when they will ask higher than 4k and then you realise that everything was aimed to social medias advert...
Ps: liked both movies, specially the hand filming of the family reunion and color. (just a selfy of you is missing)
IMO, many people (not shooters but outside this industry) will probably find the family movie very close to them. Because, if it's not their family, we are all the same in fact. We have very similar worries, attachements, values, and conditionings etc...so even if the characters themselves are not directly linked to others, the content yes.
In that sense, I'm back to the car race film. And the family film goes in this spirit too: IMO it is using high-end tools (or very good) BUT, keeping the "non profesional touch" so people feel close.
It's keeping freshness, etc...and that is not easy to balance. The car race has it. This family movie has it also, and the look is there. I'm convinced that when we start to add more and more gear, crew etc...it's not working that well, more
Exactly it becomes more difficult to keep spontaneousness with heavy artillery and complex set. It's posible but require
More experience not being trapped by the gear.
So in a way I understand the ADs torture: if a shooting costed 50.000 and the revenues are 80.000 and 1000"likes" but a phone shooting costed 5.000 and revenues are still 80.000 and 10.000"likes"...they make numbers.
Maybe we don't care about how many "likes" but those dudes seem to
Take those social medias very seriously.
Of course what I'm saying does not apply to brands like McLaren, Chanel (although chanel...), or General Dynamics etc... Those need extremely detailled and sophisticate imagery shooted by highly
Competent crews. But not all products require that level, as you said, it depends.
But something is happening. Some WW brand perfumes are still using parts of shootings
That have been done many years ago. They just cut differently. Then,
All now do the same stupidity: you got those english voices tinted with false french accent
To make it more fashion (Paris still sells).
Imagine the voice: ”cooter...the new fragrance by Janes Russell”...
Same text, same voice for all brands. Pathetic.
And in fashion all they do is blowing the footage so it looks
Dynamic and they can hide the MUAs (they smoke too much herb actualy) disasters
Super visible in 4k. Because again, when resolution jumps,
All problems in the chain jump also.
So my point was: where do we go like this? More and more pixels
And complexity to end in social medias culture?
Got a app in a mobile that shoots squared MP4 with vintage filters
In wysiwyg. The footage obtained is incredibly crap but the audio
Surprizingly ”good” (editable). People love it. They are crazy with it.
It makes me think that I will create a fake advert of a perfume with
All the filters revued and upload this in vimeo.
I'm sure I can do a beleivable campaign with it...lol
Very sweet you shared part of your intimacy.
-
it is not so often you see an authentic kodak brownie moment made with a fancy rig and crew but maybe in this day and age it is a "look" worth emulating since we all want what we don´t have and photography or video is an easy way to sort of get it.