FCPX Title Safe

Quick little post for a helpful tool!

Someone recently sent me some nice information to have for use with Final Cut Pro X... for any of you who have decided to switch to this program, you've probably learned the horrible error of your ways as you realize the lack of control and abilities it seems to have... for those of you who have started with it and never used any of the previous versions of FCP, you probably don't know what you are missing.

With that said.... one fairly important tool that FCPX seems to be missing is the ability to view title safe (when you have media going out for television this is more important than one might ever be able to imagine).

Do not fret though, for some saint of the post production world has created a plug in allowing title safe to be viewed in FCPX.

http://www.fcp.co/forum/9-free-fcpx-plugins-and-templates/1750-tky-free-fcpx-dual-purpose-safe-titleaction-and-grid-overlay-adjustment-layer

There is the link. The source who sent it to me has said that it works well... love to hear feedback for anyone who says otherwise.

I can not attest to how well it works or to FCPX at all... I must admit I have yet to use it, so any of my harsh feelings towards the program are simply based off of my first impressions, reviews, and tutorials I've watched.

I vow to someday soon use this program and give it a run for it's money but running it through many vigorous tests... but until then, I remain skeptical and distant from this impostor of a program.

Nonetheless, this is still an important tool that anyone using the program should be able to have access to.

More editing magic coming soon.

Center Cut Protection

Here's another good term to learn for all you aspiring television/commercial editors. It's a pretty simple thing to remember, but a valuable term none the less. I had one of the stations ask me to make sure my file was Center Cut Protected before uploading it to their FTP site...and thank goodness for the internet and it's ease of defining terms for me, otherwise I'd have made a fool of myself!

Center Cut Protection is a term that applies to SD footage that was shot in HD. Even more specifically it applies to commercials/spots edited in HD but being output in SD. This is very common as SD televisions and channels still exist... so the commercials need to be down converted to SD in order to air on said places!

The term itself is referring to any graphics/text put into the commercial or spot... in HD, the title and action safe are different from the SD title and action safe.

(To those who don't know the safe boundaries, Action safe is a line in the screen that guarantees what is within the bounds will be 100% viewable on the screen... if you're outside, there is a higher risk of it being cut off when viewed. The determining factor that decides if it gets cut off or not solely rested with the viewer... it depends on what type of tv they are watching it on and how they have their tv configured.)

Anyway... here's an example. The blue thin lines are the safe boundaries. Action Safe is the outer line, Title Safe is the inner.

The reason for two different ones is simply put: If you have text/graphics on the screen, it's pretty much assumed that the information in them is important, so to be EXTRA safe the title safe is smaller... meaning absolutely NO chance of it being cut off... the action on scene will most likely be happening in the center anyways (unless you are Danny Cohen, and you're filming "The King's Speech") so there is more room for the action to happen.

What you CAN see in these safe boundaries are small little lines appearing closer in from the left and right. These are you're Center Cut Protection lines... since SD is a 4:3 aspect ration, and HD is a 16:9, the safe boundaries change.

Here is a 4:3 safe bound (with the HD footage in it)

You can see the black bars appearing to keep the HD in a 16:9 aspect, whilst being in a 4:3 frame. But some channels will want to rid themselves of this black bar (even though the footage was meant to be viewed in 16:9) and they'll adjust the picture to fit in a 4:3. (see below)

You can see they enlarged the picture... meaning you lose that extra space on the left and right and the black bars on the top and bottom. The blue lines in the 4:3 frame, line up with the small dashes in the 16:9 frame from the picture up above.

So to condense all this down... for HD outputs, you can follow the HD safe boundaries to your hearts content... but when making an SD version it's a good idea to keep everything in Center Cut Protection... the 4:3 boundaries. Even if you are working in the HD, just follow the small dashes as your guide, no need to create a WHOLE new 4:3 project... just follow the dashes from that HD one. The only pain is you have to make a 2nd commercial basically, since you need to readjust the text/graphics from your HD version to make it fit.

Center Cut Protection is not always the case... more than not they will request it be this way... other wise just leave it be!

So there it is... another new term to add to the list!

Frankenbiting

This is a short post... but a really good term I learned from Cinema Editor Magazine (which if you're a passionate filmmaker I suggest you subscribe to this magazine! Doesn't matter if you aren't an editor...it talks a lot about the editors role in a production and their relationship with others on the crew)

Anyway... I was reading a brief article about reality television editing and was introduced to a term that makes it very easy to describe a very typical feature of dialogue editing. This term applies to any aspect of editing, though reality tv and documentary films use this technique more than any other.

The term is Frankenbiting. It refers to the splicing of pieces of dialogue and piecing it together with other pieces of dialogue to create a complete thought or a story. So you're taking sound BITES of dialogue and freakishly conjoining them together to create something new... similar to the idea of the monster FRANKENSTEIN... hence, FRANKENBITING.

You can look at this as taking things out of context.... and sure, sometimes it is.... but when you have hours of interviews to cut down to an hour and a half documentary... or a 30 minute show, you don't have much choice but to cut a lot down and out to make sure you have a story there that viewers will want to watch. Though it's easy to take it too far and completely change the purpose of your show/film, creating a monster such as Frankenstein.... it doesn't mean it has to be so bad. More times than not, this technique will save you from complete failure or slow pace of your story.

Let's face the truth of editing people... it's not just about putting pictures in a good order to move from scene to scene or shot to shot... when you look even deeper at what an editor's purpose is, the essence of what they must accomplish (all you editors should know this... and if you don't, PAY ATTENTION) The soul of an editor's job is simply this.... STORY. No film will work if the story doesn't make sense.. or if the story is boring... or if the story is happenings too fast or the latter, too slow. This goes for television shows and documentaries... people watch a film/show for the same reason they read a book. They want a good story!

The story doesn't have to be like INCEPTION... deep and complex... or romantic, like THE NOTEBOOK. The story can simply be good vs. evil, with all the lights and whistles of an action film... i.e. DIE HARD. But there is still a story there.... even shows such as Poker Championships, the story is about winning the game and who is doing well vs who isn't. Commercials also have stories... the product or message they want to advertise... if a Commercial can't convey this story properly... then it's a bad commercial and a company loses a lot of money, hence why ALL commercials CANNOT function without the complete and utter devotion to it's story. Whereas you can occasionally get a film with no real story... i.e. TRANSFORMERS...or the more recent M. NIGHT MOVIE'S.

All joking aside... when it comes to these type of shows and films, Frankenbiting will be your saving grace in many cases. It's not a bad thing, but must also be used in the proper way... you don't typically want to take everything out of context, just create a more compelling and interesting story.

That's it.... learn the term, use it. When it comes to a lot of the commercials I've been editing lately, I've had to use this technique and have come to love this term. I'm thinking maybe it'll be my next tattoo.... perhaps.

Also, if you don't have Cinema Editor Magazine from ACE... get it. It's so good and one of the only magazines that I read from cover to cover.

That's it. More coming to you, when it comes to me!

DSLR footage into Final Cut Log & Transfer

I'm sure most of us know how this is done, but just to make sure it's out there for anyone and everyone to read, here is a quick tutorial on how to make this happen.

Everyone SHOULD know that with the current versions of FCP you can't work efficiently or effectively with the H.264 files recorded on your DSLR. You need it to be converted to the native format for FCP, Apple Pro Res. You can do this a number of ways, be it through MPEG Streamclips Batch List workflow, or putting all those H.264 files into Compressor and converting them there. Both of these ways take time, as does Log and Transfer, but I find the Log and Transfer process to be much more efficient and easier to do... plus it helps keep things organized within the project better, since you can add your scene/take/roll and notes in the Log and Transfer screen.

The process I am about to talk about works with the Canon cameras for sure, since I've not yet used a Nikon yet in this manner I can not say for sure if this works or not for Nikon. When I do that, I'll update on the accuracy of that.

This whole process is really easy, and done even easier if you do it right during your DIT process on set of after shooting. (DIT stands for Data in Transfer, though many people say it stands for a number of different things... or just simply, dumping your card onto a drive.)

The card, when opened on your computer will have 2 files in it... DCIM and MISC.

Inside of the DCIM folder you will find your card data folder, and inside your data folder will be all your recorded clips: .MOVs are the H.264 and the .THM files are the core data of each individual clip...

In the MISC folder, you will not find anything... it's empty...

This does not make this folder any less important... it's part of the workflow and works with FCP to allow Log and Transfer to read the data. I'm sure 100% how the software code works for this to work, but it works similar to a P2 card... where there are empty folders that are necessary for the program to read the data.

Anyway... people's biggest mistake when transferring is to just take the data folder, in this example labeled at 100EOS7D. Thinking this all you will need... but when you get around to the Log and Transfer process you will find it impossible for Final Cut to read the file, giving you a Data Error message.

This is because it does not have the proper path directory for FCP to read... it's annoying, but none the less true.

If all you copied over is the data folder, what you need to do is simple... under your CARD folder (or whatever you decide to name the folder) you need to create 2 new folders... labeling the first DCIM and the second MISC. When this is done, copy the 100EOS7D folder into the DCIM folder. Then in Final Cut Log and Transfer, make the directory path lead you to that folder labeled CARD. Do not lead it to the 100EOS7D folder, because the program needs to read that MISC folder too.... so by leading it to the CARD folder, you allow it to read both the needed folders. Or you can simply drag and drop the CARD folder into the Log and Transfer screen...my preferred way of doing it, much faster.

That's all it takes.... but like I said, you can save yourself a small headache and just copy the FULL card onto your drive when you're doing the DIT. It's not the end of the world, but saves you a few moments later or confusion if you can't figure out why it doesn't work.

Even though I've done this numerous times... if I get caught in the moment of WHY WON'T THIS WORK with the Log and Transfer screen, I still find myself pondering the issue for awhile before I realize it's the same simple mistake it's always been.

Final Cut Pro X

The thought of even writing this makes me very tired... I've literally been on a roller coaster of emotion about FCPX since the moment I heard about it, and I'm still not sure where I stand with it yet... but the more I read and learn about it, the better I am able to get a grasp on my true feelings about it.

Before you read further, I suggest you watch this video from NAB 2011 where they did their first public demonstration of the program. It's worth watching cause it'll make much more sense with what I'm talking about... unless you know Final Cut like that back of your hand, in which case watching will just give you good visuals!

First a foremost... there are a few things I liked about this video, besides the fact that it sounds like Aaron Eckhart is giving the presentation, it really gives you a good visual for how these new (or just updated) features will work.

Here are the things I like the most about this new version... Format ingestion and Background rendering. I absolutely love that Final Cut can now handle ANY format you put into it... and yes, from my understanding this does include H.264 now...which just makes life much easier considering all the DSLRs these days! But even more so than the formatting thing, I love that there is background rendering! Do not be fooled, this does not mean you will never have rendering problems... all it means is that FCP will not wait for you to hit the RENDER ALL or RENDER SELECTION button anymore... it just is always doing it in the background. So as you apply effects or whatever your heart desires to a clip it will automatically start rendering it and you can go on and continue editing elsewhere in your timeline. But user beware, this still means when you apply a lot of effects to a clip, you still won't be able to watch right away... I hope that goes without saying, but since FCP has seen fit to make it over the top easy to edit now I'm going to say that this means there will be a bunch of "not the brightest crayon in the box" editors taking on the program now.

My one fear with the background rendering though is how it will effect the overall power and speed of the program... before you look at me and say that I'm stupid cause the point of background rendering is to help speed up your workflow, know this... it may speed up your workflow, but it takes a lot more processor speed to make this new feature work... and when you have FCP try so hard to be a one stop shop for all things post production, that eats up a lot of processor speed.

"Well, AVID can do it... why not Final Cut?".... well, AVID works better because it does have all the whistles and lights that FCP has seen fit to make sure it has.

Don't get me wrong... I like being able to apply a quick effect, or touch up a shot with color, or apply animation and motion as much as the next guy... and it's nice to do a quick check to make sure your edit will work correctly with what you envision as the final version...but does Final Cut really need to be so heavy on all these features? Isn't that what the other programs are for? Color...Motion...Compressor....etc. etc.

With that said, let's look at some other of the new features FCPX has to offer. The layout of the whole program is much different.. and for lack of a better description, much more simple (i.e. lame). I don't think it needs to be a very complex layout... that would just be counterproductive, but I think making it so plain and simple means it's more confusing how to do or see the multiple things we've gotten used to in the older versions of the program.

For example, the viewer is gone. All you have is the canvas, which I think is called the Event Viewer now. (they call things events instead of timeline, clips, etc.... was this necessary? No. Did they have to change all the terminology to seem very new and improved? No. Did they do it anyway? Yes. Why? Cause they're Apple.) So with no Viewer, it's all done in one window... which for me I feel I'll have to pay closer attention to what I'm actually applying a cut to now... Did I do it in the timeline like I have hoped? Or did I do it to a clip by mistake... or vis versa.

Instead of the viewer though, they do have a film strip viewer... which allows you to skim through a clip and see it skimming on the Canvas. Is this nice? I'm not sure.

I do like the new way of marking clips though, it's called Keywording now I believe, allowing you to select a whole section of the clip and adding notes to it. This is nice because with the marker you can only mark 1 frame, and then if you really want to know your out point you have to put another marker, so when you come back later you can just quickly cut it and drop it in the timeline. With the keyboard since you select the whole section you like, when you come back you just grap and go really fast... nice when used in the appropriate way, I'll explain what I mean by that soon.

I do like how they have the whole audio workflow set up... it's a step in the right direction I think, though I can't say for sure since they only talked a little about it. There are a lot of features that are nice for this and what I like is it seems like it's all about making editing with picture with the sound there much easier and not trying to make FCP into a sound design and editing/mixing program...though since they didn't show much, I'm sure it has more to it than there needs to be... sorry Soundtrack Pro.

It does have a lot of controls for the audio, but again it's nice when used to just check how a cut is coming along not to do a final mix for a whole piece. I did laugh in the video when they showed the fade controls for audio... why did I laugh? Because it is the exact same thing you can do now in these older versions of Final Cut, except it looks different, yet everyone there was applauding and cheering is they someone had just invented the wheel!

I like the way the workflow is used for the trimming... I think it is much easier to use and allows for much more control than the previous version of trimming. I never use the trim aspect much now because it's too confusing and time confusing and prone to messing me up... but this new way looks promising.

Things I'm not too likely to enjoy.... I don't like there are no lines separating tracks for video or audio... it's just open area you drop stuff in to. The lines, though they serve no actual purpose to the outcome of a project, were nice because they kept some form of organization in the timeline. What I do like though now is you can cluster clips together to appear as 1 clip and edit them in a separate timeline. Similar to After Effects and how you can work in one Composition and bring that into another composition, and so on and so forth.

Overall my ultimate fear is this... the ease of editing. I like what I see in FCPX in terms of technology and advancements in workflow and the simplicity for the common man to harness such power. What I hate, is the exact same thing... it's becoming too easy. This appears to be iMovie on steroids... which isn't great for those that understand what I mean when I say iMovie is crap.

Now I am trying to constantly take a step back and look at the bigger picture and to know that this program is still at least a year and a half away from being released... and it's coming out by itself and a very cheap price (or so they say right now) but what I mean is that there is a lot, and I do mean A LOT of things they have not shown us...which could be good or bad.

As a tool used for small production companies, freelance one stop shop people, commercial companies and even television stations (news, shows, whatever) this could be a gold mine. It allows for fast work to meet tight deadlines or have faster turn around times to get a piece to a client... which I hope down the line does not come back to bite us in the butt. I don't want to see the post production process become to quick and easy that people expect us to have something done so fast.

Editing is still an art... it's still something that takes time and SKILL. To all you people out there wanting to hire someone to edit, be you a producer, a production company, or just an aspiring filmmaker... please please please, do not just assume because the program makes it easier to edit that anyone can do it. You wouldn't want a cinematographer shooting your film if he doesn't understand how to use light and harness the power of composition and framing, even if he does have the best top of the line camera. You wouldn't want a Director who doesn't know how to act or communicate... even if they are cheap or will work for free. Don't take an editor just because the program should be easy..... the technology and equipment is only 20% of the actual process of post production. (Unless you're James Cameron in which case the technology and equipment is like 98% of the process)

Seriously though... when it comes to working in film and movies, this program could not be any further from the point. It's so easy that there's so many ways to lose creativity.

Part of post production, ESPECIALLY editing is about finding the believable moments in a scene...the compelling parts of an overall story. Being able to quickly cut something together is not the point of it... anyone can edit something together to show an edit, but it takes time and understanding to edit something together into a viewable and enjoyable piece of art. By allowing such fast skimming you miss every opportunity to find those "magic moments" in a take. Be it the subtle look an actor gives or the way a certain line was delivered... it's about finding those moments to make a scene dynamic... but just skimming to where you know there is a take or the part you want, you miss the opportunity to watch through all the bad stuff and B-roll... which is where you find those moments you never expected and can really make or break a film.

What would you rather eat... Grandma's cookies made with love and created with good, real elements? Or store bought cookie dough that was made in a factory? Sure they both do the same thing in the end, they fill you up.... but which one will you enjoy more? Which one will you look back on one day and miss more?

I still have a lot to learn about this new version, and I suggest you look into it and learn more too. You have to make your own opinion of it for yourself... I can't do that for you... all I've said here is my own opinion based off what I've read, seen, heard, and learned.

Final Cut has never let me down and I love the program dearly...it's what I've always known and used. But with the ability to see where this is going and my fears fueling my doubt... I have decided it's time to learn AVID more intensely. I will never abandon FCP, but I may have to learn both in order to survive here.