APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X FCPX Debates FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials
FCP 7 used on PARASITE
COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates
<< PREVIOUS • VIEW ALL • PRINT
by Shane Ross
on Jan 13, 2020 at 4:51:00 pm
FCP 7...discontinued nearly a decade ago...was used to cut a feature film in 2019...one up for an oscar.
https://blog.frame.io/2020/01/13/parasite-design-and-vfx/?fbclid=IwAR3FwI6L...
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
Re: FCP 7 used on PARASITE
by Bernard Newnham
on Jan 13, 2020 at 10:16:25 pm
It was a brilliant editor. If it was still around - maybe v15 - I'd still be running it
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:11:28 am
FCP 7 was used on more Oscar nominated films than FCPX this year!
(Yeah, i'm throwin' shade)
by Oliver Peters
on Jan 15, 2020 at 12:17:39 am
... from my cold, dead hands.
Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Jan 15, 2020 at 12:23:32 am
And "The Irishman" was cut with Lightworks, which is also still around, although still being developed.
by Eric Santiago
Haha, throw shade 😉
It'll always be about the script.
by Noah Kadner
ZOMG- I did not know about this...
FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training
by Mark Suszko
I think it demonstrates that it's ultimately about the artist, and not the tool. How many NLE's can claim they are used by Walter Murch, after all. I think he's cut on them all, and they've all advertised themselves as his favorite at one time or another. It's not so much what he cuts on, but how he does it. Same with Thelma. I have no idea what she cuts with. It's her eye, her hear, her timing that matters, and the tool is just a means of that expression. Is the tool easy and pleasant to use and powerful? Good. But let's not kid ourselves that any one particular tool is ever going to be the ultimate one.
by Michael Hancock
[Mark Suszko] "Same with Thelma. I have no idea what she cuts with."
I think she still uses Lightwave.
Michael Hancock
I'd still use Lightwave for 3-d animation, if I had the money and access. I think you meant LightWorks, though:-)
D'oh! Yeah, LightWorks. A couple of us in the office were just talking about 3D programs and Lightwave came up.
Here's an interview with her - LightWorks is mentioned as her NLE. https://postperspective.com/the-irishman-editor-thelma-schoonmaker/
by Brett Sherman
I think this post is rather tongue-in-cheek, but the notion of what software is used for Oscar-nominated films is a rather silly to me.
As complicated as the artistry of film editing is, it is a somewhat limited technical software toolset that is needed to do it. Yes, massive amounts of organization. But do they need sophisticated color correction? Nope, someone else does that. Full-featured audio? Again, someone else. Fancy title templates? Un-uh, someone else. Work with crappy footage someone shot on their iPhone? They wouldn't think of it. Pulling a clips out of multiple project spanning the last 8 years? Nope, movies are self-contained. Turnaround in 4 hours? Ha!
Maybe Lightwave is better designed for this type of editing. But chances are it's a pretty poor choice for what I need to do.
[Brett Sherman] "but the notion of what software is used for Oscar-nominated films is a rather silly to me."
It's like anything else - it's aspirational marketing. Following the tools of certain filmmakers is the same as the current trend of YouTube influencers and companies find that to be important. It does generate sales even though that might be minor in the grand scheme of things.
[Brett Sherman] "Maybe Lightwave is better designed for this type of editing. But chances are it's a pretty poor choice for what I need to do."
It's Lightworks, not Lightwave. If you check out their current version, its pretty full-featured, so it might actually be a good choice. Hard to say without really trying it of course.
https://www.lwks.com
Granted, the appeal is probably small here, because it has tracks ☺
[Brett Sherman] "But do they need sophisticated color correction? Nope, someone else does that. Full-featured audio?"
Actually this is important. At the top level there are larger teams, but many editors doing features have the need to rough in effects, correction, and sound mixes for screening versions. Drop a level down to smaller films and many of the festival entries and in that world you often have to generate the final product out of the NLE - no rough edges.
[Brett Sherman] "Work with crappy footage someone shot on their iPhone? They wouldn't think of it."
No. We just have to work with directors who wants to shoot 35mm, 16mm, Super 8mm, and some hand cranked 16mm Mitchell camera that Bob Richardson has in his arsenal. OH, and then throw in new footage shot on HD video and then some of that crappy 4K iPhone footage, and about 15 GoPROs.
[Brett Sherman] "I think this post is rather tongue-in-cheek, but the notion of what software is used for Oscar-nominated films is a rather silly to me."
Yes, and that was the WHOLE point. It's silly that Avid does this. It's silly when people go "OH! LOOK! This feature film was cut on FCPX! It's breaking into the Hollywood system! A FOOT HOLD!!" The film didn't win because it was cut on X or Y (we all know this), yet Avid PR keeps pushing the "CUT ON AVID!" and people here keep touting "Look FCPX is good enough for Hollywood! It plays with the big boys in features!" "Has anyone seen an article about someone using Resolve to cut a feature?" "Premiere was used on DEADPOOOOOOOOLLL!!"
But it was also to show that my beloved FCP 7, that I devoted all my heart and soul and energy to, still has what it takes to get shit done!
Well, the editor of PARASITE, Jinmo Yang, just won the ACE EDDY award. This often is an indicator of where the Oscar goes.
Yeah, I know it's NOT the tool. Just interesting that 10 year old, discontinued software is still being used on features, and is helping win awards.
What film cut with FCPX won an ACE Eddy? HMMMMMM!?!?!
(shade throwing continues!)
[Shane Ross] "(shade throwing continues!)"
You're enjoying this way too much ☺
by Tony West
I would have liked to have seen more about his workflow.
Did he use an old slow computer also or something like an iMac Pro with the old software?
He said that he found 7 "simple" to use. Not better than what's currently out there, just "simple"
Films like this are generally not cut with native, full res media on the edit system. Usually lightweight edit files are created beforehand and that's what you cut with. Then the finishing is handled by the facility doing color correction. Many times the editor never sees or touches the original media. If that's the workflow, then the age of the software and hardware in less critical. That's one of the reasons that older Avid systems are still prevalent in Hollywood.
[Oliver Peters] "Films like this are generally not cut with native, full res media on the edit system. Usually lightweight edit files are created beforehand and that's what you cut with. Then the finishing is handled by the facility doing color correction. "
Thanks Oliver, but I already know he used proxies, the article covered that. This article isn't about CC it's about VFX and I want to know if he did all those VFX on an old computer or a new one. Not what other people do, what did "He" do.
I'm just curious.
I get that. Throughout the article he refers to using After Effects for the pre-visualization of VFX and then presenting that to the VFX house for reference. It doesn't sound like any finished effects were done on the edit system. If that's the case, any newish Mac would do just fine - for instance old Mac Pro towers.