FCPX goes to Hollywood

A few months ago fcp.co were the first ones to post an article that mentioned a 100 million dollar movie being cut on FCPX: www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/1225-fcp-x...tion-of-professional

The movie was mentioned by Sam Mestman briefly at the bottom of the article. Since then things went silent, but his comment did stir up the editing world.

Two weeks ago this video was posted by the Digital Cinema Society: vimeo.com/83441833

In the video, Neil Smith of LumaForge confirms that 6 editors are effectively editing a blockbuster movie using FCPX in "a Hollywood studio under a water tower" (Warner Bros). So this movie could be Focus, starring Will Smith: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(2014_film)

We have been using FCPX on a professional level for a long time now, so the fact that a Hollywood studio feature is being cut on it neither surprises me, nor does it make any difference to us. But I hope it will finally stop some people from still posting idiotic statements as "FCPX is not ready for professional use" on various forums. I thank Peter and his crew for always being on top of things when it comes to FCPX, I'm sure fcp.co will be the first ones to follow up on this topic once the new gets official.

- Ronny

Good spot Ronny, it might have to make the front page.

I can't believe the video was out there for two weeks without being spotted!

I wonder if its Jupiter Acceding. The budget seams to match and it is also a film that needs 6 editors. Seams excessive to have 6 on a drama comedy. And who is the producer who has worked on Hunger Games? But you are probably right the cinematographer has used Alexa before and worked with Lightiron who has openly supported FCPX. And the filming locales match those mentioned. Makes no difference for us who use FCPX, but its nice to se some proof that we are right in our choice.

-Emil

I made a custom plugin for first assistant editor Michael Matzdorff:

could you build a generator that would give me both a timecode burn in and a footage and frames counter?
I'm looking for one for a movie I'm working on, it's the first FCPx studio picture and I'm trying to help out our sound guys. the timecode start should be user definable feet and frames should be like 35mm 4 perf (16 frames per foot)

I made it publicly available on my site in October:
alex4d.com/13-alex4d-timecode-35mm-4-perf

@Alex4D

What are they going to do with 100 million dollars on a movie like Focus? The Wolf of Wall Street had a budget of a 100 million, American Hustle was made for 40 million. Anyhow, at least I'm glad that FCPX will be used on a Hollywood movie.

But the editor of Focus is Jan Kovac and if you look at his twitter page it is inundated with tweets and retweets about FCPX, so I'll say that you are right, it probably is Focus

Plus, Neil Smith said "the directors have been using FCPX"! Which means that there are multiple directors on the project, and Focus is directed by two directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa.

Now I'll have to see this film

Yes, must be Focus. The IMDB page mentions the same shooting locations as in the video, New Orleans and Argentina: www.imdb.com/title/tt2381941/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt

Wether it is Focus or another movie, it's good to see FCPX being used on a major studio feature. Not that it really matters, though. I think it is far more important to see that more and more television post houses and independents are using FCPX nowadays, with far more editors working with the application on a daily basis. But some people only seem to get off on "Hollywood" credits, which is sad in a way as this only represents a very small fraction of the real user base of an NLE.

- Ronny

This is great news. I'm very new to editing, graduated from San Francisco State University in the Radio and Television Broadcast communications program this past spring. FCPX was released after my first semester and I worked at an Apple store so I got it for free. I was the only one in the whole department that used FCPX and I loved talking about it to everyone that hated it. Now I'm in the real world and every job I see on Craig's List for jobs in the Bay Area is for Premiere Pro. My current job uses FCPX, but I need to move on to bigger and better things this year and it's very discouraging and disappointing to not see anyone using FCPX. I know I could learn premiere, but FCPX is just so enjoyable to work in, Adobe programs just have way too much going on in the UI.

I'm aware of the 10,000 hour rule so by the time I become a really great editor, 5-10 years, I'm really hoping that the Internet Television industry has moved to FCPX. I'd kill to work on a long form TV series. I just hope I can find work in the mean time that uses FCPX, do any of you know of any FCPX post houses in the bay area that need an FCPX AE? I love organizing in FCPX.

Honestly, I think the 10K hour rule is becoming outdated...

I'm with Ben. In my world the 10K hour rule has even never existed for editing. It's merely an excuse to force starting editors into working at scandalously low rates or even for free (deferred payment, anyone?), just to get some "credits" on their CV.

What I have learned from 37+ years in film and broadcast post: excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude. If you have it in you, you will quickly become a very good editor. If you don't have it in you from the start, you will never learn it.

End of philosophical rant and back to Julian's question: from the comments I am reading the Bay Area seems to be the worst place in the world to be an FCPX editor at this moment, although this seems to be slowly changing. If you want to work on long-form in a large post house over there it's still mainly Avid or FCP7. The rest of the world (which actually is the biggest part of it )seems to move on faster. In Europe I see some major production houses switching to FCPX. It's a matter of time, so be patient and learn. If you have it in you, you will get there.

- Ronny

I agree in my book it is the 10GB rule!

LOL!! Good one.

- Ronny

Isn't the 10 thousand hours thing only for activities with very fine motor control? 10 thousand hours editing just makes you an old editor.

10K hours of editing is just five years, that would make me a VERY old editor

- Ronny

What are you guys talking about?! 10,000 hours is just a normal work-week in movie marketing. Also, FCP X has been in Hollywood for quite a while, at least on my computer. :evil:

Haha. Maths has never been my strong point.... Maybe if I did 10000 hours.

ronny courtens wrote: I'm with Ben. In my world the 10K hour rule has even never existed for editing. It's merely an excuse to force starting editors into working at scandalously low rates or even for free (deferred payment, anyone?), just to get some "credits" on their CV.

What I have learned from 37+ years in film and broadcast post: excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude. If you have it in you, you will quickly become a very good editor. If you don't have it in you from the start, you will never learn it.

End of philosophical rant and back to Julian's question: from the comments I am reading the Bay Area seems to be the worst place in the world to be an FCPX editor at this moment, although this seems to be slowly changing. If you want to work on long-form in a large post house over there it's still mainly Avid or FCP7. The rest of the world (which actually is the biggest part of it )seems to move on faster. In Europe I see some major production houses switching to FCPX. It's a matter of time, so be patient and learn. If you have it in you, you will get there.

- Ronny

I regard to the 10,000 hour thing, I'm mainly thinking of all the theory and intuition that comes with editing for years and just gaining experience on different projects that will influence the way you edit. I see it more of a never stop learning approach and everything can always be done better.

It's crazy, everyone in the bay area is stuck on FCP7 or old versions of premiere... This is the silicon valley, we should be early adopters of all tech. It's a really weird area and overall I really don't like it here, it's just gotten so weird with a the really rich hipster coders paying $4 for toast and taking their cats out for tea . I'd love to move to Europe some day to work as an editor, especially if I get to use FCPX.

FCPX will pick up popularity in 2014, just give it time. Change is difficult for the majority of people. It takes a progressive minority persevering to make it take hold. That's just human nature. The advancement in technology is also a two edged sword, something we should always be on guard for.

10K hours was also based on when an editor reviewed clips on celluloid, wrote out an EDL manually, and a negative cutter put the film together physically before being developed (where special effect took place by physically manipulating developing) into a final product. Also at that time, very few people could ever achieve the status of being able to actually edit.

I started by manually cutting and tapping together 8mm silent celluloid. Then by manually punching in and out re-recordings of VHS tapes. When digital cam along, I was able to progress my skills infinity faster. And 10 year old kids are editing videos for YouTube, getting their 10K hours in early.

It is a very different world. Most of the training and experience facts editors did during the days of negative cutting doesn't hold up today. We don't have to wait for a negative to get cut and developed to see what we did. Very different world today.

Look at old films like Citizen Kane. How many films today go on for 10 minutes on the same camera following non-stop wide shot takes? More should, that is a difficult part of our art to master. But still, technology also makes our craft more prone to pop-culture trends instead of artistic expression, more prone to copy-cat plugin effects, rather than carefully honed unique communication techniques.

BenB:

But still, technology also makes our craft more prone to pop-culture trends instead of artistic expression, more prone to copy-cat plugin effects, rather than carefully honed unique communication techniques.

Amen to that, my friend!

- Ronny