Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

namethisfile

macrumors 65816
Jan 17, 2008
1,186
168
Sure. A de facto standard is just something that's so commonly used/done that it becomes an unofficial standard. For example, in video editing, graphic design, music production, etc., it's assumed that people will use Macs therefore Macs have become the de facto standard. When it comes to editing movies or TV shows in 'Hollywood' Avid is the de facto standard.

sure. aha.



I get the comparison. My point is that even Edit Droid (a very early NLE made by Lucasfilm targeting film editors) had separate source and record monitors and so did Lightworks (which even used a Steenbeck-inspired hardware controller) so maybe for an NLE it's the better way to go?

my comparison was to point out FCPX UI which got a lot of criticism as being something inspired from the real and a real tool once upon a time--a steinbeck editing table. the one with one monitor only.

sure some steinbecks had two monitors. but adding a second monitor to a steinbeck unless doing something i cannot think of right now, is akin to something like being useless or a diminishing return with that 2nd monitor.

if you've edited on film, you would have looked at your film on a viewer. cut your film. and have your film laid out ready to be taped. like a bunch of clips hanging out in bins. the viewer is something separate from the steinbeck. it reminds me of how FCP X has the scrubber/viewer now. anyway, the steinbeck is basically where you tape together your film. or splice.

so what i'm saying is even though there are 2 monitor steinbecks, they're redundant.

whereas, in the video world, you need to have 2 monitors as a defacto. see what i did there?

why? ummm... there would be no way to see what is on those tapes. is why.

Or is your point that it's just purely an aesthetic choice like the skeuomorphism found in previous versions of iOS?

it's not just that. FCP X UI to some people looks different. say those people coming from avid, premiere pro and even fcp7. while some people think it's a more expensive and "professional" software (those people coming from imovie). but, to me, it looks like film editing and how i edited on a steinbeck back in school. so it's totally natural, instinctive for me. it's not just aesthtic that FCP X looks like that. but to me, premiere pro and fcp 7 is aesthetics the way it looks now w/ a two-monitor window thingy.


How do you go from the beginning to the middle to the end of a reel of film? Pretty much the same way you go from the beginning to the middle to the end of a video tape. Say I want video tape D. I think of it, I grab it and I have video tape D. A 12min film reel isn't drastically different than a 12min video tape.

wow. OMG! i can't believe i have to explain this. in editing film or even video, you would do a preliminary screening of your "dailies." so film reel D are the restaurant shots, lets say. you know what is in film reel D or lets say videotape D. film is nonlinear b/c in editing, the clips or strips of film in film reel D would not stay in that reel. they would get spliced. cut. snipped into smaller strips of film.

you can't cut a videotape into little pieces.

Walter Murch on a draw back of non-linear editing vs linear editing on film:


He also talks about the pros and cons of non-linear editing on a computer vs linear editing on a KEM or Steenbeck in his book "In the Blink of an Eye".

Two asides, it's steenbeck (not steinbeck) and 2 feet of 35mm film is about 2 seconds in duration.

do you think i'll learn something if i read that link?
 

namethisfile

macrumors 65816
Jan 17, 2008
1,186
168
This sums up your series of posts nicely.

There is a lot to be learned from industry leading pioneers like Walter Murch but with your attitude, no, I don't think you'll learn anything from reading what he has to say.

R u trying to say that i am closed-minded or something? U posted a link about some dude, as if he will back up ur claim that editing film is not nonlinear, which ive already explained why u r wrong. But u seem to like to insist that it is also linear editing for some reason. This is what i meant by learning something new by that link. So the link would disprove me, which i dont think it will. Even w/o reading that link. And, btw, providing links should be for academic reasons and not commercisl, which u just did by prpviding a link unrelated to topics discussed. It seems like ur just doing a shout out w/ that link. This is b/c u didnt even extract a qoute or anything from it and just flat out gave a link to some dude i had to google to find out.

Thanks.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
R u trying to say that i am closed-minded or something?
You are discounting a link you didn't read, about "some dude" you don't recognize, because it may go against your opinion, but you already know you are right so you think, "What's the point of reading it"? I think that's a text book example of not being open minded.


U posted a link about some dude,
"Some dude" is Walter Murch. He has Academy Awards for Best Sound, Best Film Editing and was the first person in film to be credited as Sound Designer because of his audio work on Apocalypse Now. He is the only person to win Best Sound and Best Film Editing for the same picture (The English Patient). The English Patient was also the first film edited on an NLE (Avid) to win Best Film Editing and Murch later was the first to use FCP on a major motion picture when he used it to cut Cold Mountain.

as if he will back up ur claim that editing film is not nonlinear, which ive already explained why u r wrong. But u seem to like to insist that it is also linear editing for some reason.

What you've done is point out how differences in the physical media itself impacts workflow. Can you physically edit videotape the same way you do film? No, but you can make electronic edits from one videotape to another that accomplish the same basic goal. Doing any sort of ripple edit is probably the hardest basic edit to do with videotape compared to film or an NLE.

Below is a simple example of linear vs non-linear.

There is the same 5000 frame shot on a piece of film threaded on a Steenbeck, a videotape loaded into a VTR, and a QT movie loaded into an NLE.

Can I start on frame 10 of the film and advance to frame 2500 without first going through frames 11- 2499?

Can I start on frame 10 of the videotape and advance to frame 2500 without first going through frames 11- 2499?

Can I start on frame 10 of the QT and advance to frame 2500 without first going through frames 11- 2499?

The only 'yes' answer is to the NLE. I can't instantly skip from frame 10 to frame 4576 to frame 20 to frame 389 on anything but the NLE.

Mechanically (for lack of a better term) videotape and film are basically the same. 1" videotape, for example, is reel-to-reel just like film. On both systems the media starts on a supply reel, is thread through a machine, past hardware that is designed for recording or playback, and then secured to a take-up reel. Whether film or videotape, it's one continuous pieces of piece of media stretched between the two reels. A videocassette is merely a reel-to-reel system inside a protective case.


And, btw, providing links should be for academic reasons and not commercisl, which u just did by prpviding a link unrelated to topics discussed. It seems like ur just doing a shout out w/ that link.
It was a blog post about Walter Murch which contained a quote from him that directly related to our discussion. How is that commercial and unrelated?


This is b/c u didnt even extract a qoute or anything from it and just flat out gave a link to some dude i had to google to find out.
Below the link was a block of quoted text from the link.
 

namethisfile

macrumors 65816
Jan 17, 2008
1,186
168
You are discounting a link you didn't read, about "some dude" you don't recognize, because it may go against your opinion, but you already know you are right so you think, "What's the point of reading it"? I think that's a text book example of not being open minded.

discounting for many reasons. it's a link from you. not the person but the supplier of the link is dubious to me considering how you keep insisting and the third time now of insistance.

i don't think i was afraid. i didn't even come up with editing on film with a steinbeck and editing on video with two tape decks. i just tried to explain stuff. afraid? i don't think so, buddy. it's a euphemism. relax, buddy.

and i said before that that link probably has nothing to do with topics discuss, to disprove me nor backup your own claim. how could it? how could it backup YOUR claim. i won't read to find out b/c i know the answer. and it's not b/c i'm closed minded. i can't think of the word, tho. maybe you know?

"Some dude" is Walter Murch. He has Academy Awards for Best Sound, Best Film Editing and was the first person in film to be credited as Sound Designer because of his audio work on Apocalypse Now. He is the only person to win Best Sound and Best Film Editing for the same picture (The English Patient). The English Patient was also the first film edited on an NLE (Avid) to win Best Film Editing and Murch later was the first to use FCP on a major motion picture when he used it to cut Cold Mountain.

yeah. i looked him up on google. thanks again.


What you've done is point out how differences in the physical media itself impacts workflow. Can you physically edit videotape the same way you do film? No, but you can make electronic edits from one videotape to another that accomplish the same basic goal. Doing any sort of ripple edit is probably the hardest basic edit to do with videotape compared to film or an NLE.

electronic edits? wtf is that? you're making stuff up as you go. what i've done? oh, please. i didn't do anything. i didn't come up with this stuff. i only tried to explain to you over and over again how editing film is nonlinear, no matter how you splice it. see what i did there? editing on videotape with two decks is linear.

Below is a simple example of linear vs non-linear.

There is the same 5000 frame shot on a piece of film threaded on a Steenbeck, a videotape loaded into a VTR, and a QT movie loaded into an NLE.

Can I start on frame 10 of the film and advance to frame 2500 without first going through frames 11- 2499?

Can I start on frame 10 of the videotape and advance to frame 2500 without first going through frames 11- 2499?

Can I start on frame 10 of the QT and advance to frame 2500 without first going through frames 11- 2499?

The only 'yes' answer is to the NLE. I can't instantly skip from frame 10 to frame 4576 to frame 20 to frame 389 on anything but the NLE.

Mechanically (for lack of a better term) videotape and film are basically the same. 1" videotape, for example, is reel-to-reel just like film. On both systems the media starts on a supply reel, is thread through a machine, past hardware that is designed for recording or playback, and then secured to a take-up reel. Whether film or videotape, it's one continuous pieces of piece of media stretched between the two reels. A videocassette is merely a reel-to-reel system inside a protective case.

omg. here is the answer he tried to insist on and this is his third time answering it but using different words. i'm going to take the high road though and not answer him the third time. i think we know what is linear and what is nonlinear. i think we know what is film and what is videotape. but i am quoting this anyway for future reference.


It was a blog post about Walter Murch which contained a quote from him that directly related to our discussion. How is that commercial and unrelated?

Below the link was a block of quoted text from the link.

can you requote that again b/c i didn't see this block of text. i want you to requote that block of text b/c i wanna see if it has anything to do with the topic.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
i didn't even come up with editing on film with a steinbeck and editing on video with two tape decks.
Don't worry, I never thought that you did.


and i said before that that link probably has nothing to do with topics discuss, to disprove me nor backup your own claim. how could it? how could it backup YOUR claim. i won't read to find out b/c i know the answer. and it's not b/c i'm closed minded. i can't think of the word, tho. maybe you know?
The word is closed minded.


can you requote that again b/c i didn't see this block of text. i want you to requote that block of text b/c i wanna see if it has anything to do with the topic.

It's still there on post #95. I'm not going to continue wasting my time showing you things you don't want to believe.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
yep. as i suspected has nothing to do w/ topic. name-dropping. you know this word?

Good thing you went into it with an open mind...

I'm not name dropping, I'm citing my source. Typically people see that as the considerate thing to do in an online discussion.

The quote has everything to do with the topic at hand. His process of using picture boards (pulling informative stills from each take and pinning them in order on a board) is an attempt to introduce linear aspects of film editing into his NLE workflow. If the physical editing of film and the use of NLEs where both nonlinear then he would've talked about editing in general terms but he specifically singles out NLE's because working with film is linear.

Below is a quote that gives this more context.

From Murch's book "In the Blink of an Eye":
"Computerized editing systems achieve most of their speed through random access, being able to retrieve the requested material instantaneously. This allows the editor to do many things, such as instantly compared line-readings from different takes.
.
.
.
On the other hand, linear systems (such as the KEM) store the film in ten-minute rolls, and therefore require you to scan through related material in your search for what you want."​


There's no online reference so here is a picture of the pages where the above quote appears.
99pb0w.jpg



In another part of the book Murch says the following (when lamenting about the choppy playback of NLEs when playing at fast forward or fast rewind speeds):

"In the course of assembling a sequence on the KEM, I will frequently fast rewind through the picture head, and there is something in the pure alteration of shapes and colors, seen out of the corner of my eye at high speed reverse, that tells me something about the structure that I could not learn by looking at it "straight on" at normal-speed forward.

This is the hidden value of mechanical, linear editing that the designers of electronic systems probably eliminated without even being aware that they were doing so, but there may be a way it could be reintroduced as an option once its values were recognized."
I did not take a picture of the page for this quote as I hope the previous photo sufficiently proves the authenticity of the text that I am quoting.



Below is an image to help illustrate what is linear about editing with film.
DL-Steenbeck_2.JPG


A film roll is placed on a plate on the left hand side of the machine, threaded through the rollers, past the picture head (basically a mini-projector) and finally around a spool on the right hand side of the machine. If, for example, the editor is at the beginning of a roll and wants to look at something near the middle of the roll then all the footage between the beginning and the middle has to be gone played through. Once at the middle, if the editor wants to go back to the beginning he has to rewind through all the same footage again. It doesn't matter if the section of film is ten seconds long or ten minutes long, you can't get from point A to point E without moving through point B, C and D first.

It's physically impossible to instantly jump around film the same way you jump around a clip (or a timeline) in an NLE, and that's Murch's point about linear exposing the editor to the footage over and over again and enabling the finding of gems in takes that might have originally been written off.


While looking for the overhead shot I used above I found this picture of an editor working with two different film rolls at the same time. Apparently this can be done with an 8-plate flatbed and is used same way NLE's and linear video editors use source and record monitors (link and link). How common were two headed setups like this? No idea, but source/record was definitely used for the editing of physical film and it certainly wasn't redundant.
Technisonic-Film-Editing.jpg
 

JustinePaula

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2012
561
234
I miss the creative thinking I had to exploit in editing on tape with 1 video track, no video mixing desk, 2 audio tracks, this limitation is no more in non linear, a pity, yes there is infinitely better now, I just loved having to tax my grey matter working with fixed limits...

Maybe as an exercise I should try and edit the same way, with 1 video track and only 2 audio tracks, only with FCP X, I have no idea about tracks, all mixed up!!
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
I miss the creative thinking I had to exploit in editing on tape with 1 video track, no video mixing desk, 2 audio tracks, this limitation is no more in non linear, a pity, yes there is infinitely better now, I just loved having to tax my grey matter working with fixed limits...

Maybe as an exercise I should try and edit the same way, with 1 video track and only 2 audio tracks, only with FCP X, I have no idea about tracks, all mixed up!!

Orson Welles said, "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations" and I do think there is a lot of truth to that. When I first stated editing in college doing a paper edit was mandatory because lab time and resources were very limited.

I also think deadlines are very useful. They force you to make decisions (some good, some bad) and give a finality to a project. I've seen people spend years tinkering around with a single short film. Rehashing the same project over and over again isn't a very good use of one's time, IMO. I think in order to grow and learn from your mistakes you have to move on to new projects.
 

namethisfile

macrumors 65816
Jan 17, 2008
1,186
168
Good thing you went into it with an open mind...

omg! the quote you quoted in conversation #95, i believe, had nothing--repeat NOTHING--to do with what you are saying and what i was trying to dispute. the quote was talking about digital editing and analog editing. wtf?

omg! pictures of a book and an editing table. oh great.

the guy is talking about his process and his opinions and his practices, which if you are famous enough some people might want to know.

but, i repeat, has nothing to do with the convo about your insistence of film being linear editing.

just because a reel going from point A to point B is also linear as a videotape going from point A to point B doesn't mean that editing film is linear, the same way, editing on 2 videocassette deck is linear. there are tools that make editing film not linear such as scissors and tapes and an editing table.

as i said before, you can't cut a videotape into pieces. the cutting of the film is what makes it not linear.

the fact that a film reel has 5 takes of a scene, let's say, a film editor would cut that reel into 5 strips of film for the 5 takes. then, if needed, can be cut further. all those strips are then laid out in a bin for the editor to be able to take whatever strip he/she wants to assemble the scene.

on a video editing deck, the videotape with those 5 scenes cannot be cut b/c--big effin duh--it's a videotape!!!! so the video editor will have to go back and forth on the videotape to access those scenes. the back and forth action, the fast forward and rewinding action that this video editor is doing is the linear editing i am talking about.

meanwhile, the film editor has all those strips of film in front of them in a bin or hanging on the wall or something readily available for them to access. there is no rewinding or fast forwarding. he/she simply just grabs the strip of film that they want and splices them together. this is why it's not linear.

i know you know this already. but, you like to throw mambo-jumbo, useless irrelevant pics and quotes to seem passionate, knowledgeable and dedicated to something.
 
Last edited:

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
omg! the quote you quoted in conversation #95, i believe, had nothing--repeat NOTHING--to do with what you are saying and what i was trying to dispute. the quote was talking about digital editing and analog editing. wtf?
The quote was talking about NLEs and film editing. Why would Murch, who cuts with either physical film or NLEs, talk about linear video tape editing when describing differences between NLEs and cutting actual film?:rolleyes:

as i said before, you can't cut a videotape into pieces. the cutting of the film is what makes it not linear.
You can cut videotape into pieces. Physically splicing videotape together was how it was edited before the much easier process of electronic editing was created (link). Reel to reel audio recordings on magnetic tape were physically spliced as well until Digital Audio Workstations (like ProTools) became popular.

the fact that a film reel has 5 takes of a scene, let's say, a film editor would cut that reel into 5 strips of film for the 5 takes. then, if needed, can be cut further. all those strips are then laid out in a bin for the editor to be able to take whatever strip he/she wants to assemble the scene.

on a video editing deck, the videotape with those 5 scenes cannot be cut b/c--big effin duh--it's a videotape!!!! so the video editor will have to go back and forth on the videotape to access those scenes. the back and forth action, the fast forward and rewinding action that this video editor is doing is the linear editing i am talking about.
If the video tape editor wanted he could just dub each take to a new tape and be able to access the individual takes too. No one really does that though because it's not the most time efficient way to work since with videotape you can punch in the TC and the machine will automatically FF/REW to that specific point. Making selects reels is common though (taking the best footage/takes from multiple sources and compiling them onto a single tape).

meanwhile, the film editor has all those strips of film in front of them in a bin or hanging on the wall or something readily available for them to access. there is no rewinding or fast forwarding. he/she simply just grabs the strip of film that they want and splices them together. this is why it's not linear.

Of course there is rewinding and fast forwarding with film. You have to rewind or fast forward to get from where you are to where you want to be. If you want to add (or remove) a shot in the middle of a scene you can't magically jump to the middle of a that scene like you can in an NLE. *That's* the difference between linear and non-linear editing. Non-linear editing got its name because you can jump to any point in time you want without having to go through the adjacent media first. Non-linear editing also used to be called random access editing and I don't think anyone would describe film as a random access medium.

If you are at the end of a take how do you get back to the beginning? With film and linear video editing you have to rewind back to the beginning. With an NLE you can just press a button (or click the mouse) and you are back at the beginning instantly.

Let's say you want to put Shot Q in between Shot F and Shot G which are already edited into the scene. First you have to FF/REW to get to the end of Shot F. Then you make the edit to separate Shot F from Shot G and tape the end of Shot F to the beginning of shot Q. Next you have to get to your outpoint on Shot Q (which likely means running the shot off a spool since 35mm film is about 90ft/per minute and you probably don't want hundreds of feet of film just laying about haphazardly). Once you've arrived at the end of Shot Q you tape it to the beginning of Shot G. You then have to rewind all the way back to a little before the F/Q edit point so you can watch back the edit you just made. If you want to watch it back again you have rewind the film again. If you are satisfied with it then you FF/REW to get to your next edit point.

The film editor takes smaller pieces of film and tapes them end to end to make one, long piece of film and the linear video editor places shots, from multiple tapes, end to end on a single piece of videotape. Neither can instantly jump around from point A to point Z to point Q though editing with film is more flexible than linear video editing when it comes to reordering existing shots or making edits that effect the overall duration of the piece.

Is editing with physical film the exact same as linear videotape editing? Of course not, but they are both forms of linear editing. Just like FCP X and Avid MC (especially old versions of Avid MC) operate very differently yet they are both still non-linear editors.


i know you know this already. but, you like to throw mambo-jumbo, useless irrelevant pics and quotes to seem passionate, knowledgeable and dedicated to something.

If there are terms you don't understand let me know and I'll try to explain them better (it's 'mumbo' not "mambo", BTW). I edit for a living so being passionate, knowledgeable and dedicated about it kinda helps keep me employed.
 

JustinePaula

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2012
561
234
In order to speed up tape editing, Betacam and the like, you could use the SMPTE timecode, and if your producer, or assistant was smart enough, they would write down the timecodes for the scenes in question.

It was very common practice to use the hour of the SMPTE HH:MM:SS:FF to indicate tape number, and each take would be a different minute.

You would enter the timecodes into a long list called a log, this would be used later in what was called online editing, where the final effects would be added, using only the clips that had been edited in what was called offline, or dub editing.

The reason, that with each pass of the edit heads, there was a tiny generation loss, this would become noticeable and very obvious. Also each use of the tape subjected it to damage, so you would make a rough "vhs" copy to offline edit, to preserve the only original media you had.

Editing is not about the mechanics of editing, what system, Avid/Adobe/Apple/Lightworks, it is about the art, the so called "Art of the Edit", in fact the new generation non linear editing is great as it allows for all sorts of new techniques, it does have a responsibility, that is to be responsible to the story.

It is somewhat confusing or rather amusing to me, that in the little over 130 years we have somehow engineered our way back to where it all started, with the advent of digital, this allowed for cloning of data, so no generation loss, this also allowed for small cheap capture stock, ie mini-dv tape.

The problem with tape is that has to be ingested at the standard rate of how you filmed it, here it is 25 frames a second, so I have to ingest in real time, if I shot 60 min, wait for 60 min for it to ingest.

This was not good enough, so we invented faster than real time stock, this came at the cost of how much we can record, the SxS cards, and so on, we have now a digital format reel....

So we have to be very very picky about what to shoot, so in summary, the cameraman is the 1st editor....What a pity..
 

namethisfile

macrumors 65816
Jan 17, 2008
1,186
168
The quote was talking about NLEs and film editing. Why would Murch, who cuts with either physical film or NLEs, talk about linear video tape editing when describing differences between NLEs and cutting actual film?:rolleyes:

you quoted him. not me. roll eye back!

You can cut videotape into pieces. Physically splicing videotape together was how it was edited before the much easier process of electronic editing was created (link). Reel to reel audio recordings on magnetic tape were physically spliced as well until Digital Audio Workstations (like ProTools) became popular.

omg! knowledgeable or just ancient or just internet smart? and now you are bringing up audio.... HS! NSBST! (NonStopB*llSh*tTrain)

If the video tape editor wanted he could just dub each take to a new tape and be able to access the individual takes too. No one really does that though because it's not the most time efficient way to work since with videotape you can punch in the TC and the machine will automatically FF/REW to that specific point. Making selects reels is common though (taking the best footage/takes from multiple sources and compiling them onto a single tape).

more irrelevancy. more mambo-jamborees. more blah-blah-blahs.

Of course there is rewinding and fast forwarding with film. You have to rewind or fast forward to get from where you are to where you want to be. If you want to add (or remove) a shot in the middle of a scene you can't magically jump to the middle of a that scene like you can in an NLE. *That's* the difference between linear and non-linear editing. Non-linear editing got its name because you can jump to any point in time you want without having to go through the adjacent media first. Non-linear editing also used to be called random access editing and I don't think anyone would describe film as a random access medium.

of, course there is rewinding... omg! aha. sure. you're right.

yeah, right!

If you are at the end of a take how do you get back to the beginning? With film and linear video editing you have to rewind back to the beginning. With an NLE you can just press a button (or click the mouse) and you are back at the beginning instantly.

omg! i already said that film is also linear in that a film reel also has to go from a-b. i said this in my post directly above this. also, the film editor will also inevitably go back and forth on their new sequence as they assemble it, adding/replacing footage.

Let's say you want to put Shot Q in between Shot F and Shot G which are already edited into the scene. First you have to FF/REW to get to the end of Shot F. Then you make the edit to separate Shot F from Shot G and tape the end of Shot F to the beginning of shot Q. Next you have to get to your outpoint on Shot Q (which likely means running the shot off a spool since 35mm film is about 90ft/per minute and you probably don't want hundreds of feet of film just laying about haphazardly). Once you've arrived at the end of Shot Q you tape it to the beginning of Shot G. You then have to rewind all the way back to a little before the F/Q edit point so you can watch back the edit you just made. If you want to watch it back again you have rewind the film again. If you are satisfied with it then you FF/REW to get to your next edit point.

let's say, that is not what i meant by not linear? let's say it. this is not what i... lol.

The film editor takes smaller pieces of film and tapes them end to end to make one, long piece of film and the linear video editor places shots, from multiple tapes, end to end on a single piece of videotape. Neither can instantly jump around from point A to point Z to point Q though editing with film is more flexible than linear video editing when it comes to reordering existing shots or making edits that effect the overall duration of the piece.

jumping back and forth. isn't this what you are doing? you keep jumping back to this point even though this is not what meant.

instantaneity is not a pre-requisite for something not linear.

Is editing with physical film the exact same as linear videotape editing? Of course not, but they are both forms of linear editing. Just like FCP X and Avid MC (especially old versions of Avid MC) operate very differently yet they are both still non-linear editors.

ok. so you think both are the same form of linear editing. i hear ya! you're right. you're also very smart. you must be somekind of great editor. maybe you should write a book.

you can call it "film and video: so linear"

If there are terms you don't understand let me know and I'll try to explain them better (it's 'mumbo' not "mambo", BTW). I edit for a living so being passionate, knowledgeable and dedicated about it kinda helps keep me employed.

mambo-jambo. i am editing it how i want it.

terms i don't understand? well, you should tell me the terms that you think i don't understand since you're the one that is so knowledgeable, dedicated and passionate.
 

Macyourdayy

macrumors 6502
Sep 9, 2011
439
207
well, do you really think there is such a thing as defacto standard? all of the NLE's digest/ingest the same video formats. or whatever.

my comparison with the video world editing setup using tape decks and two monitors, which NLE's like FCP7, Premiere Pro and Avid has emulated into their UI is to make one comfortable using a computer, since most of the editors back in the day where coming from analog editing. FCP X users have never touched a steinbeck or even a video editing deck setup. this is why FCP X is what it is. it's inspiration though, as i tried to say before is from the film world. particularly, the steinbeck editing table with just one monitor. simple. and it works.

film editing with a steinbeck is nonlinear. i hate to say it. when you're editing on film and in a film editable table like a steinbeck, you have your film unreeled and hanging out in real bins just like you do in a computer program. so, say you have film strip that is two foot long (i think just over a minute or so in video length or whatever)--going from film strip that is in the beginning to the end takes like 2 seconds or no seconds at all. it's just like scrubbing a video clip in FCP X. this is nonlinear. you see the strip you put it the tapehead where you want it and bam. you're there.

in video, going from 00:00 to 00:50, you'd have to press the fast for ward button. or press stop and fast forward to make it faster. then press play again. and then fast forward the remaining minutes to that point. unless you overshot and you'd have to press the rewind button.

so, say you want film reel D--in film editing table--you think of it--you grab film reel D and you have film reel D.

if this was video editing, you'd have to fast forward to film reel D or rewind to film reel D, depending on where it is located on the tape.



People work different ways and for some, two monitors or viewers help them work, while a single monitor or viewer works for others. Avid was developed to help film editors transition to NLE. Your comments about tape and fast forwarding are irrelevant as the discussion is about how apple effed over FCP users in professional environments by dumping 7 rather than offering X as an alternative, especially considering it wasn't even half baked at the time and was barely an iMovie alternative. When our post prod went FCP, incentives were offered to staff with Mac and FCP packages and many windows users bought macs and liked them. The X debacle just incensed everyone. It might be usable now in collaborative environments, but it's 3 years on. Photos better offer the same tools as aperture or they will alienate another third or more professional users and high end amateurs. These users are quite influential and it seems insane to keep cutting them off, seeing they were the ones who helped a great deal to keep apple viable through the dark ages. In fact, I believe apple should show some gratitude and give them better support.
 

Macyourdayy

macrumors 6502
Sep 9, 2011
439
207
I miss the creative thinking I had to exploit in editing on tape with 1 video track, no video mixing desk, 2 audio tracks, this limitation is no more in non linear, a pity, yes there is infinitely better now, I just loved having to tax my grey matter working with fixed limits...

Maybe as an exercise I should try and edit the same way, with 1 video track and only 2 audio tracks, only with FCP X, I have no idea about tracks, all mixed up!!

Ah, the good old days. Certainly challenging but also rewarding. Did you use VR 2000's, AVR1's or 2's, VPR's or various betamaxes? Later I had the luxury of more than one machine and a one row vision switcher plus audio mixer! Certainly limited producer's options to change things till air time.
 

rei101

macrumors 6502a
Dec 24, 2011
976
1
I do not trust Apple Pro Aps

They are good and what ever, but Apple can unplug the plug at any time just because they do not make money from them. They are barely an added value.
 

Mr. Peach

macrumors newbie
Sep 12, 2003
2
0
Who are you people? I found this thread by searching for some info on FCPX to develop pitch projects. Bitter debates, tasteless name calling and a bad case of elitism? Why the argument about who and/or what is professional? What does this thread serve?

Reality TV EP
 
Last edited:

laurim

macrumors 68000
Sep 19, 2003
1,985
970
Minnesota USA
Who are you people? I found this thread by searching for some info on FCPX to develop pitch projects. Bitter debates, tasteless name calling and a bad case of elitism? Why the argument about who and/or what is professional? What does this thread serve?

Reality TV EP

New to the internet? :)

It's frustrating but if you keep trying, you'll find a few reasonable people with good information. Concentrate on them.
 

rei101

macrumors 6502a
Dec 24, 2011
976
1
Bwhahahahhahahah Thanks Kid. Editing user share, is Avid 35% Fcp7 30% Premiere CC 18% and FCP x at17% Now So BWHAHAHAH

Final cut 7-x make up more of the market then any other, and FCP7 is losing users to FCPx so lol Avid has not gained much market share lol and premiere has not gained much more market share either so..

Yeap.... in you high school you would say.

Here in Miami UCF is teaching Premiere and Avid. Telemundo went from FCP7 to Premiere and Avid. Univision went back to full AVID. SOMOS TV is on AVID and Premiere. The place I am working at is going from FCP7 to Premiere.

I saw FCP X and I liked but I would never recommended it. Just because Apple is completely unreliable and leaving FCP7 like that was like cheating, it was a nasty move. At least the company I am working now has over 7 thousand projects edited in FCP7 that won't be able to open ever again.

Imagine that your girlfriend cheated on you with a valet parking who is a drug dealer and now she has herpes and HIV. That is the taste Apple left the video industry by dumping FCP7 like that. Are you going to date her sister? Forget about that family.
 

JustinePaula

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2012
561
234
In case you missed it, I know not the biggest broadcaster on the planet, only the 2nd or 3rd largest, the BBC, aka the British Broadcasting Corporation has announced that it is going to use FCP X, the new "trackless" 64bit Final Cut Pro for news post production.

As they are not a US company, this might not be of any useful to many that live in the land that gave us McD's, Ford's, M-Mouse and D-Duck... But is a huge deal that a well known broadcaster, along with I-TV, broadcaster/producer of a small cycling event in France, used FCP X.. The future is heading away from track based systems, along with the insane idea of renting software..

To be brutal, I think that the idea of having my security and ability to work tied to an outside source is a bad idea, that means my systems have to be attached to the internet, which causes all sorts of security issues, maybe more than the cost of the subscription, with FCP X, you do not need at any point the need to access the internet just to confirm your system will allow you to work.

Avid/Adobe being subscription only, cloud based technology limits it use to fixed "home-base" systems, if you go on the road, how easy will it be to edit if there is a break down or zero access to the cloud??

Macbook Pro's. MacBook Airs, and Mac Pro's are all enough to at least edit using proxy work flow, so you can edit whilst on board a plane, waiting in the airport, etc, you are not reliant on the cloud...

That fact alone is worth the cost of purchase, to edit using a reliable system that has a wonderful interface, the technology used in FCP X is brand new, the workflow is vastly different to FCP 7 and it's twin ugly sisters, Avid and Adobe.

The freedom you have in X cannot be matched in Avid/Adobe..
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.