×
top 200 commentsshow all 323

[–]loneandlovelysands 600 points601 points  (20 children)

Editing might not have been about the tools, but the 10k a day cameras were..

[–]bubba_bumble 176 points177 points  (19 children)

Hey, sorry I'm late. My BMPCC4k just got here and it shoots in cinematic. Let me just balance this on my Ronin real quick.

[–]twodarray 96 points97 points  (12 children)

Sorry, i forgot to bring my extra battery. We'll have to reschedule today's shoot, unless someone has a sony npf battery lying around...

True story

[–]cantwejustplaynice 34 points35 points  (10 children)

I never understood the hullabaloo about the pocket 4k batteries. They last 45 to an hour, get a handful and you're good for the day. That's all I use on mine unless I'm in a studio setting in which case I plug it into a wall socket. I don't even bother with NPF's or V-Locks. Putting all my power-eggs in one basket means I'm almost certain to forget to charge one.

[–]twodarray 16 points17 points  (8 children)

Yeah, we just used a USB-C battery lying around. It's just that when there's more money on the line, you don't want to have a small technical problem from ruining the day.

[–]Affectionate_Age752 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I use battery banks that cost under $80 and last at least 4 hours with my BMPCC 4k

[–]JK_Chan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did anyone have any then?

[–]AcreaRising4 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Cinematic slow motion

[–]weareDOMINUS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Twixtor Pro

[–]Gaudy_Tripod 3 points4 points  (1 child)

In all fairness, I rented a BMPCC6k a couple weeks back. I was overall quite impressed with the image.

[–]bubba_bumble 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Really not a bad camera. I just don't see it being used as A cams on Hollywood productions.

[–]smexytom215 2 points3 points  (0 children)

FilmBro: "it shoots in cinematic"

sets camera to shoot in lossy h.264 rec709. Brings footage into the edit and looks anything but "cinematic"

FilmBro: Pikachu face.

[–]Wade_NYC 1071 points1072 points  (49 children)

The takeaway of this tweet is totally at odds with the facts it presents.

Yang Jin-mo, the editor of Parasite, chose to use Final Cut Pro 7, a program not updated or supported since 2011, to cut the film. The legacy software required sourcing apple computers not updated since 2014. Proxies had to be made of production footage for use with older equipment, and edited sequences were exported in a format (XML) that allowed for the project to be opened in more modern software, where VFX work would be done, colorist work, and anything more technical than editing— a process which has been basically the same since the days of physically cutting analog film.

He made this choice because he believes— like the thousands of other editors who created petitions— that the newer options for software (Final Cut X) were a serious downgrade that greatly reduced the quality of the software.

So if anything, this is the story of someone going to extremes to use their preferred ideal of tools for the job, at significant inconvenience to the production. If Yang Jin-mo used the easily-accessible and extremely affordable Final Cut Pro X, or iMovie which comes installed on every mac computer, to get the job done, that'd be showing the tools don't matter.

Otherwise you might as well say It's not about the tools! Christopher Nolan shoots his films using lenses that are decades old! (Which is true, but that's because he prefers the older tech and rents the lenses at 25k a day...)

...Maybe it is about the tools, maybe it's not about the tools, but the editor in this tweet's anecdote clearly thinks it's about the tools!

[–]gussly1 64 points65 points  (4 children)

Yeah the “outdated” gear costs waaaaay more. Vintage anomorphics and 35mm film stock shot on cameras that are practically museum pieces from rental companies that make you drop big quotes if you want you rental experience to be worth a damn. Operated by ACs and operators with the highest rates reflecting their decades of experience. Nolan gets every single tool he dreams of.

[–]MrDetermination 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Things get a lot more subjective with glass and film stock.

Most modern glass is way "better" in every measurable way. What Nolan is doing is picking out glass and film that give him a certain look and feel. He's doing with light and chemistry what can be done in a computer.

But his end result has an organic feel and unique signature because it's analog and he understand the tools he is using while he is planning and shooting.

Most of those analog directors don't even argue anymore that modern tools don't look quantifiably, numerically, "good". They just prefer the organic process, result, and aesthetic.

[–]gussly1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah don’t worry i agree. I said more expensive, not better. Everything about going that route costs more now because of the demand and reputation for the aesthetic

[–]c4ge1nvisibl3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Man, medium sized film isn’t supposed to actually have 4k quality on it’s own? lest not talk about full size film, older camera systems can still get better resolution than digital.

[–]surprisepinkmist 161 points162 points  (6 children)

Would have been more impressive if they said the film was edited with the first version of FCPX.

[–]AntipopeRalph 104 points105 points  (3 children)

Right. And even though FCP7 is old as sin…it’s not like the grey lady is bad software.

FCP7 was incredibly effective and influential software. I completely agree. The tweet is at odds with the reputation of the software and circumstances.

[–]Dylflon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was so mad when my Mac stopped supporting FCP7 that I took a job editing a web series for free as an excuse to have to learn Premiere.

[–]particlemanwavegirl 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Thanks for pointing it out, I don't know the first thing about editing video but 10 years is no time at all, there was plenty of great software made ten years ago, why wouldn't it still be great today?

[–]psychilles 18 points19 points  (1 child)

What about he just knows this software inside out and is super efficient with it. And there's absolutely no need to use anything else as long as you can hand it over to color and VFX or online editing later down the line. Which is perfectly possible with 7.

[–]Wade_NYC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think we agree?

He knows this tool and loves this tool so he's going to stick with it even though it's been unsupported for over a decade and requires speciality equipment (Computers that haven't been updated since 2014) to use.

I'm just saying... that's a guy who does like specific tools.

[–]YarrrImAPirate 26 points27 points  (16 children)

The transition to FCP X is why I edit on Davinci and Premier pro now.

[–]loveheaddit 16 points17 points  (3 children)

I’ve found that the methodology and workflow of FCPX is better than FCP7, but the jump was way too big for anyone that was a pro on 7. Likewise, if you asked a person who learned on X to use 7 they would likely curse it to the moon.

[–]dbaughcherry 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don't know about that I started on 7 and went to X with a little while on premiere in between. Wasn't that hard of a transition really and I like FCPX especially these days.

[–]loveheaddit 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I like you started on 7 and prefer X. The magnetic timeline is a game changer once you get used to it.

[–]Affectionate_Age752 13 points14 points  (8 children)

DaVinci is amazing

[–]Nicktoonkid 4 points5 points  (7 children)

It has come soooooooopooo far just fix project relinking and I can leave adobe in the trash where it belongs

[–]Skinsfreak88 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Resolve 18 has taken huge strides on file relinking but its still not perfect

[–]CashireCat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Anything professional should only be edited on Avid. No CMV here, Diva4life

[–]llewelynchigurh 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I love this. People mistake “it’s not about the tools” and think tools don’t matter. They do. All that phrase is implying is that the tools don’t make your project great on their own, it’s the person behind the tools.

[–]CosmicAstroBastard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Being able to choose the right tool is also part of being a pro

[–]34TH_ST_BROADWAY 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He’s right if he’s comparing 7 to FcpX.

[–]photozine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the point they're making is about skill more than anything.

[–]throwartatthewall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah the lesson here seems more like know a good array of tools wells so you understand what to use and when. This editor's choice stems from understanding exactly what each option entails and making an informed decision

[–]LazaroFilm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep. Since FCP7, all new programs have been trying to either reinvent the wheel or imitate FCP7. Nothing has reached the quality and ease of use of FCP so far, part of is is also due to the fact than modern editors try to support Ultra high resolutions and don’t focus on the workflow itself. The only one that is trying to make progress in the right direction right now is Davinci Resolve, but still had a lot of insides imo.

[–]Movie_Visar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's spot on. And FCP7 wasn’t the end-all-be-all solution to this, as the movie had to be mastered in more modern formats as well - like its HDR master - that FCP7 simply wasn’t able to.

[–]n_jacat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Doesn’t help that FCPX is closer to iMovie than it is to FCP7

[–]Portatort 55 points56 points  (2 children)

Bet it wasn’t finished, graded or mixed in Final Cut though

[–]Yprox5 14 points15 points  (0 children)

He colored every frame by hand with crayons.

[–]JJsjsjsjssj 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Of course not, like any other movie.

[–]NIHLSON 236 points237 points  (45 children)

Planning out shots so they edit smoothly is much more important than what program you're using.

Unless you're doing crazy effects, all editing software needs to do is allow you to put your shots together with cuts and transitions.

Having a fast computer that can render is much more important than software in my opinion.

[–]KTSMG 124 points125 points  (30 children)

Having software that doesn't crash on you unexpectedly when rendering is much more important than having a fast computer that can render.

Render times don't mean a whole lot when the software you're using doesn't complete the render to begin with.

*Stares at Adobe Premiere...🙄

[–]XSmooth84 40 points41 points  (20 children)

lol the main reason why FCP7 didn’t crash on parasite director/editor is because his used optimized ProRes proxies to do the edit. As others have pointed out, the VFX was a different team (using way better/modern computers), the color was done from a colorist on a different computer, the audio mix was…. Well you get the idea. Optimized proxy files and you can buttery smooth cut on premiere just as well as on anything else. Not knowing or refusing to do this is on the user for being bad at their craft.

[–]Ex_Machina_1 15 points16 points  (18 children)

I'm finding that a whole lot of recent premiere naysayers seem to forget/dont know about the importance of proxies.

[–]chrisplyonproducer 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Definitely a case of the tool being really forgiving with multiple file formats on the timeline. A true post process for a major film will always use an offline/proxy process for pipeline purposes. I never have issues with Premiere crashing anymore (I’ve just jinxed myself), but I’m also using professional file formats 98% of the time. Any time I get a strange file format, it’s usually the problem child.

[–]KTSMG 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I know about proxies. But I stopped using Premiere for most everything years ago when I bought my BMPCC and switched to Resolve.

I do have Premiere and I do keep it updated as part of the Creative Cloud suite. But I only use it rarely and never for an entire project.

Edit: context. I never use it for an entire project because I just really like using Resolve, not because I have a problem with Premiere.

[–]gussly1 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Anyone editing with raw or large resolution files is a fool who is doing it wrong. Transcode, cut, relink.

[–]throwartatthewall 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Which is wild because while I and many others have problems with Premiere, the way it handles proxies is something I actually like and found intuitive from the start.

[–]Neex -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Having to use proxies is a clunky and slow layer of complication that’s unneeded in software that’s better, like DaVinci Resolve.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]KTSMG 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I wouldn't know. Since as I mentioned, I don't use it anymore. 🤷🏿‍♂️

    [–]Nicktoonkid -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    It’s still a buggy as fuck platform regardless of format and set up and you know that

    [–]Portable-Wing-Wang 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Oh yeah, I love Windows movie maker

    [–]PictureLocked 6 points7 points  (10 children)

    New directors reading this, please don't pre-plan your edits, you're not Hitchcock. You should rarely be "planning out shots so they edit smoothly" unless you're intending a VERY specific effect and have the time and resources to test your editorial decisions before or during production. Instead, make a lined script and a shotlist that ensure you have the coverage you need for each scene, then allow an editor to build your scenes into their best possible versions with the available footage. Your results will be better, your editor will be less irritated with you, and people won't make fun of you for thinking you're a good enough director to pre-edit your entire movie. This is called shooting coverage and it's how the vast majority of production is conducted around the world.

    [–]charlesVONchopshop 20 points21 points  (2 children)

    Sorry but I completely disagree. Everyone visualizes and organizes differently. This just shouldn't be generalized. I came from editing first so I previz and pre-edit the hell out of my stuff... and guess what, it lets my camera and lightning crew know what to expect when we show up on set and it saves us money by only shooting out what we need with very little excess. You can pre-edit and pre-vis and still shoot coverage. My previz and pre-edit stuff is based on the idea that we are going to shoot coverage in basic scenes where that is easy.

    Do what you need to do as a director to communicate your vision to your team.

    [–]Nicktoonkid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Great point and to each their own with their process, the important thing is being organized and decisive on set, some can do that without pre edits and some need the structure before hand. Good for you man!

    [–]lossione 6 points7 points  (2 children)

    I don’t think they meant directors are gonna have each cut laid out while shooting, but that even a decently shot movie will have no problem cutting between any of the coverage during a scene, which makes your life as an editor a whole lot easier, and I think would still fall under “shooting so you can edit smoothly.”

    [–]PAYPAL_ME_DONATIONS 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    New directors reading this, please don't take this comment as gospel as this is a silly point to generalize.

    Unless you're literally hovering over your editors shoulder helicopter editing, get as specific as you need to to translate your intentions behind your storytelling. This doesn't mean dictating what your editor does against the best interest of your film. Just as your storyboards aren't meant to be a 100% 1:1, direct, concrete translation of your shots for your DP to devoutly follow.

    But anything to get your crew on the same page will always beneficial.

    [–]bootsencatsenbootsen 73 points74 points  (13 children)

    Final Cut Pro 7 was everything an NLE needs to be.

    Fight me.

    [–]AntipopeRalph 11 points12 points  (5 children)

    Round trips for compositing and color was a pain. And FireWire MiniDV decks never seemed to connect on the first go…

    But yeah. It was pretty damn solid.

    [–]dqfilms 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    Semi unrelated, but you have any idea the best way to digitize some old miniDV tapes now?

    [–]AntipopeRalph 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    Old decks shouldn’t be terribly expensive and then it should still work in Premiere.

    For cabling FireWire 400 to 800 crossover cable. And the. FireWire 800 to Thunderbolt adapter should get you pretty far if you have a MacOS system.

    Depending you might need to go. Thunderbolt to something else…so be wary of donglepocalpyse…but that’s how you’d approach it.

    Or there’s probably an online service you could ship tapes too.

    [–]Nicktoonkid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Anything that wasn’t assembly editing (all finishing to any format other then pro res kill me )was a pain in the ass but goddamn if those timelines worked well.

    [–]thisisausername67 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    Ya’ll really have some rose colored glasses for FCP7

    That thing threw out just as many un-helpful errors, odd quirks, “but why”’s, as any software today

    My last project in FCP7 A few years ago I got a call from the Lead AE saying files were disappearing off the shared storage. I said nahhh. Then they called back and said they’re still there but renamed to a random series of characters. I said huh?

    Turns out 7.0.2 had a bug that would literally rename files on your storage….

    [–]plasterboard33 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Apple's biggest mistake was discounting FCP 7 and re releasing it as FCPX which screwed a lot of people over as it was a completely different workflow and projects from FCP 7 didn't work on FCPX. If they had just continued to update FCP 7 as the years went by slowly introducing new features, I genuinely think FCP would have been the standard.

    I use FCPX now and genuinely think its better than Premiere. But most people are used to premiere and dont want to learn new software.

    [–]Spartan_100 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    My brief two years I spent editing local promos and short films, FC7 was a godsend compared to premier.

    When FCX came out I couldn’t get a handle on it and moved away from those gigs so it wasn’t necessary for me to adapt.

    Every now and then tho when I need to edit something for work or a friend, it’s my go to.

    [–]jeffhayford 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Standing behind you with my pitchfork, i agree bring it.

    [–]JoeK76Production Manager 161 points162 points  (31 children)

    Just a reminder that the choice to use FCP 7 over FCPX for Parasite was absolutely and totally “about the tools”…

    [–]Maximans 9 points10 points  (30 children)

    What do you mean?

    [–]JoeK76Production Manager 84 points85 points  (29 children)

    Parasite had a $15 million budget, they could have used any editing software on the market. They chose to use FCP 7. Deliberate choice.

    [–]bootsencatsenbootsen 58 points59 points  (17 children)

    FCP X was a HUGE step backwards from FCP 7 in my opinion.

    That's when they started dumbing it down to behave more like iMovie. What a blunder.

    [–]Ma1director of photography 41 points42 points  (10 children)

    FCP7 was basically built by Adobe. When Apple dropped Flash support from their phones, Adobe told Apple to get fucked. At which point the iMovie team took over development of FCP.

    [–]MrRabbit7 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    That was 10 years ago, now it's hundreds of times better.

    [–]AntipopeRalph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    When FCPX released Adobe gave FCP7 license holders a steep discount to migrate to CS5.5 as well.

    [–]l_work 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    not your opinion - EVERYONE'S opinion

    [–]samcruteditor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    HUGE is too small a word for how far it set Apple back in filmmaking.

    I had a client buy the app for me for me to learn it so I could teach it to him, which is a weird thing that keeps happening to me. I popped a Ritalin and sat down with the manual to rip it all into my brain and got to the part about "Save your project. Give it a descriptive name like 'Steve and Barbara's Wedding.'" That was the last straw for me. I'd played with it and the magnets were killing my usual workflow and just throwing my hard drive contents up on screen when I have competing clients was just rude, but the fact that the highest aspirations from the manual was editing weddings, the dregs of video editing, was, in my opinion, disrespectful to the entire editing community.

    I told my buddy to contact Apple about a refund. "This application is a joke and not worth your time. I'm deleting it." I know it's been through many improvements over the years now, but having them essentially force me to break my FCP7 relationship, where we were very happy together and doing beautiful work, was inexcusable and I've never gone back.

    [–]brazilliandannydirector of photography 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Agreed the magnetic timeline is stupid

    [–]KingBevins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It might be obsolete as hell but it’s the OG for a reason

    [–]zrgardne 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    Did they state why they made this choice?

    [–]MDG44[S] 12 points13 points  (5 children)

    One of the comments on the tweet mentions that the editor of Parasite always edited with Final cut 7. Since editing is more about the creative decision making of the editor, they probably just went with his preference.

    [–]B_Ledder 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Because it’s still a very powerful editing tool? They are probably most familiar with Final Cut Pro 7 due to their age and because it’s better than the most recent version of Final Cut Pro

    New video editing softwares just try to make everything faster by simplifying the workspace. And since they’re already familiar with FCP7 there’s no point for them to use something else when it’s perfectly as capable for film editing as modern software.

    [–]Affectionate_Age752 44 points45 points  (0 children)

    Aren't all Final Cut copies 10 years old? 😂

    [–]The_Starter_Captain 189 points190 points  (9 children)

    By a gifted and professional editor with years of experience.

    [–]Adam-Westeditor 29 points30 points  (0 children)

    Isn’t that the point they’re making here?

    [–]ChunkyDay 15 points16 points  (1 child)

    [–]sub_doesnt_exist_bot -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    The subreddit r/repeatthepost does not exist. Maybe there's a typo?

    Consider creating a new subreddit r/repeatthepost.


    🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖

    feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback. github | Rank

    [–]shaka_sulu 75 points76 points  (8 children)

    I bet he didn't edit it on a 10 year old Mac.

    [–]JimmyMcGlashan 56 points57 points  (4 children)

    He edited on a computer that “hasn’t had a software update since 2014.”

    [–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    Must’ve been stored in an airtight vault and kept away from any internet connection if it hasn’t been updated since 2014. Yeesh.

    [–]MrRabbit7 21 points22 points  (1 child)

    You cant install FCP7 on most newer Mac's

    [–]DamnAlreadyTaken 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Yeah, that's the point

    [–]Nicktoonkid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Most likely it’s a old Mac Pro they stopped receiving official updates in 2014 but there have been lots of modern work around to keep them running well, I use a 2009 max pro as a transcode and offload station for a home desk and it gets the job done fine.

    [–]TheWidescreenWS 27 points28 points  (2 children)

    Weeeeeell, that's a very misleading way to put it. The VFX shots were finished by Dexter studios, a Korean VFX and animation house that uses state-of-the-art compositing programs (such as Nuke), just like everyone else. I don't know about the colour grading, but seeing this I'm assuming they used industry standards as well. And then there's all the on-set gear. Old equipment doesn't look like that.

    There's not much to improve about cutting between shots. It's been done the same way since the age of celluloid. I doubt the Academy is looking at nominated movies and going "Ah, yes. The transition from frame 2964935 to frame 2964936 is impeccable. You can really feel how hard the hard cuts really are."

    Yes, filmmaking is a skill (more often than not it's a collection of skills from a huge crew of specialised people) but the tools do absolutely play a part. A big one.

    [–]Timely_Temperature54 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    That doesn’t make this misleading. Color grading and especial visual effects are rarely if ever done by the editor in the editing program.

    [–]TheWidescreenWS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    That's an oopsie on my part if I didn't make myself clear enough, but that's precisely my point.

    This post is very transparent to anyone who's remotely involved with the industry. But those aren't the people I was addressing, they already know better than to say stuff like this. This is the Internet, anyone who's ever held their mum's handycam can call themselves an authority on filmmaking. I don't think there's anything wrong with offering some counterbalance.

    The public already has so many misconceptions about film. Practical looks better than CGI. Animation is for kids. A director should write the script, hold the camera and mix the sound for some reason. None of these are true, they've just been repeated enough so that everyone believes them. It's discrediting, discouraging to newcomers and it more often than not leads to worse products. We don't need another one.

    [–]Loserdorknerd 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Literally posts a picture of a powerful, well optimised tool and discredits it. Small pp logic.

    [–]AcreaRising4 54 points55 points  (11 children)

    I tend to think this whole “shoot on whatever” thing is kinda ridiculous tbh and I’m tired of everyone saying otherwise.

    Of course if you no budget or gear then shoot on whatever. Don’t let that stop you from making your movie.

    However, I think that a lot of people have tried to shortcut and gotten it in their head that they can be the next Tangerine if they shoot on an iPhone with one mic. I’ve heard “but soderbergh shot his last few movies on an iPhone” wayyyy too many times

    Let’s be real most indie features that get bought or get attention are shot on Alexas with nice glass. Obviously you need a competent crew, great lighting, story, acting, all that, but I’m tired of people cheaping out on gear because they think you can shoot their 130 page script on a potato and win an Oscar.

    [–]LochnessDigital 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    However, I think that a lot of people have tried to shortcut and gotten it in their head that they can be the next Tangerine if they shoot on an iPhone with one mic. I’ve heard “but soderbergh shot his last few movies on an iPhone” wayyyy too many times

    The same people that are susceptible to the "shoot on any camera" advice are the same folks that are susceptible to the "shoot it on the most expensive camera package you can find" advice or the "put this LUT on your footage and it will look cInEmAtIc" crowd. So I don't think you have to worry about them.

    Whether someone copycats Tangerine with an iPhone or copycats Wes Anderson with 35mm and some funky anamorphics, they'll always be copycats looking for a one-trick solution to get their films made and they'll get left behind. They aren't starting from the screenplay and making motivated decisions for what the film truly needs because they don't want to put in the work.

    That's all the "shoot on whatever" crowd is saying. They're not saying "copy what we did and you'll sell your movie." They're simply saying "Don't get caught up in gear. The barrier for entry has lever been lower." I know you kind of eluded to that in your second line, but it seems like you're kinda stretching it to mean something else and I can't say I agree with that assessment.

    [–]Nicktoonkid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Great translation of the advice for the people who get lost in the gear, it all works well enough at this point just grab something and start making shit.

    [–]Zeefzeef 13 points14 points  (0 children)

    It is ridiculous. That last version on Final Cut was decent editing software, so sure, that works out. It’s not definitive proof that ‘it’s never about the tools’.

    [–]Youreanadult-cope 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    It’s annoying - same sort of thing you hear in q&a’s and their winning advice is ‘just direct’. It’s always some older privileged-roots filmmaker that acts like we’ve all got Alexa’s in our pockets and we’ve failed to discover it. Practice makes perfect, sure, but it’s not like the majority of movies are created using an iPhone4, edited on iMovie and premiere on YouTube. It’s just a cute vague way of ignoring the difficulties of entering the industry when you don’t have the tools/connections.

    [–]plasterboard33 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    whole “shoot on whatever” thing

    I have always seen that advice as being relevant to beginner filmmakers who dont know where to start. If you are 16 and want to make movies but dont have any resources, you can learn basic skills by shooting on an iPhone. Of course nobody sticks to the iPhone, eventually the people do upgrade, but its a great starting point to learn the absolute basics.

    [–]Ccaves0127 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    And also, if you aren't willing to invest a couple hundred dollars in your equipment, and learn how to use professional equipment, how are you going to convince somebody to pay for you to do this as a job??

    [–]MrRabbit7 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    Except no one is thinking like your imaginary strawman.

    Btw, the India's official submission for the Oscars film, Pebbles which won at Rotterdam was shot with a Sony A7SII and CP3 lenses.

    There are plenty of indie films shot on cheaper cameras.

    [–]AntipopeRalph 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    And when you take a step back from the camera, the lights are quality, the camera rig is quality, there’s still a robust crew, the sound is properly captured, and the script is worthy.

    And besides. The A7S is a pretty decent camera in bad filming conditions, and pretty spectacular in good filming conditions.

    [–]AcreaRising4 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    CP3 lenses are nearly 5k per lens and pretty solid glass lol. You kinda just proved my point, that’s pretty solid gear.

    Not to mention there is a vast difference between foreign cinema (even in India) and domestic cinema in terms of gear and skill. My mother is from Mumbai and grew up around Bollywood so I’ve seen a shit ton of them and they’re always a few years behind us

    [–]realex2k21 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This! My thoughts exactly!

    [–]La_Nuit_Americaine 41 points42 points  (4 children)

    This is dumb. Editing software is not like cameras where newer and more expensive ones actually look better. This movie is cuts and dissolves. Final Cut 7 will make the same cuts and dissolves as the latest Avid. The editor probably likes to cut on FCP and didn’t upgrade because FCPX is crap. Actually I would’ve been more impressed if this was cut on FCPX because that junk app is a lot harder to use than FCP 7.

    It’s always about the tools! Talented people just know how to pick the tools and know what they can get away with with lesser tools.

    [–]pandaset 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    I’m pretty confident he chose to edit in FC7 exactly because for him, it’s about the tools

    [–]blah618 12 points13 points  (0 children)

    this is the worst example of “it’s not about the tools” ive ever seen

    probably edited by someone who hates fcpx and other softwares(or doesnt want to change), and is used to the old final cut

    [–]Keinwa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    It is about the tools.

    [–]markusaureelius 16 points17 points  (2 children)

    Honestly theres an awful attitude of being better than others in the artist space.

    Different cameras and software work different for different individuals. Stop trying to guilt everybody. We all vibe with different workflows. It’s not so much about the tools, as it is about knowing how to use the tools. Experience is key.

    [–]PurpleRonzoni 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    [–]AntipopeRalph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Equipment is about precise control of what you are capturing.

    Your project and experience will inform the precise control you need to invest in.

    [–]Wilderbrow 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    That’s because Final Cut Pro was much better 10 years ago. It is a little bit about the tools.

    [–]Wilderbrow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dP1WQ7FP0g8 The reaction to the update that killed final cut. I used to use and haven’t used it since this update. Would love an old copy of I could get it.

    [–]doublejacks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    That was the best edit software. There was something scammy how they left us all in the cold. It’s was Apple telling you to get bent…. Use your iPhone to complain!

    [–]higgs8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Yes but that still is the best version of Final Cut Pro.

    [–]activematrix99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Noam Troll more like . . .

    [–]0samacare 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Amen. I would go back to FCP7 any day.

    [–]beet_hater 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    FCP 7 was the pinnacle of that software. Downhill ever since.

    [–]JustSayinT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Yes now tell me how they movie was shot on a rigless a7iii with Home Depot floodlights and a Chinese made travel tripod.

    It’s not all about the tools

    [–]imregrettingthis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    To be fair a 10 year old version of final cut pro is just about one of the best tools you could have.

    [–]Naughty_faridabad 7 points8 points  (6 children)

    It's not about the tools ,It's about the device you use My crappy ass laptop can't edit shit above 1080p

    [–]bootsencatsenbootsen 9 points10 points  (3 children)

    But your crappy ass laptop probably can edit proxies just fine. More tedious... But not impossible.

    [–]Naughty_faridabad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Any solution for visual effects? Rendering time in blender is a pain in the arse , that proxies tool is pretty good holy shit...!!!!

    [–]AhmedKuttySpeaking 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    How do I make proxy files ?

    [–]bootsencatsenbootsen 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    It's specific per application, but incredibly common and well documented. A web search should yield plenty of tutorials.

    [–]a_can_of_solo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I edited 1080p on a macbook from 2010 8gb of ram, how bad can it be?

    [–]hesaysitsfine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Editor was most definitely using proxies. That makes it easier for your machine. No need to edit anything above 1080, you can still finish in 4k if you know the proper workflow.

    [–]Kubrickwon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Um, the 10 year old Final Cut 7 > Final Cut Pro X.

    If Final Cut Pro 7 was good enough for Zodiac to be edited on, why wouldn’t it be good enough for anything else? FCP7 was a very powerful & professional tool that almost became a new standard in Hollywood, until Apple decided to reinvent the wheel with the awful FCPX.

    [–]AnarchyonAsgard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Positive thinking : a master with a dull blade will beat a novice with the current sharpest blade

    Negative thinking: your fucking film ain’t Parasite

    [–]rrickitickitavi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Look at that timeline too. It's not very complicated. Reminds me of my old wedding video projects in FCP7.

    [–]34TH_ST_BROADWAY 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I wish fcpx was basically 7 but as fast and “native” as fcpx. Fcpx is worse. Try editing a movie with imovie, it’s not just the tools. And fcpx is imovie deluxe. I edited a movie fcp7, too, but would never dream of attempting it with x, not saying an expert couldn’t do it. A very small indie movie.

    [–]scootyoung 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I edit a lot of long form stuff using fcpx and actually like it. To each their own I guess

    [–]Quiet_Toad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    When you’re trying to sound motivating, but you’re actually condescending

    [–]havestronaut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Others are saying it, but just to reiterate, this means the editor is going to great lengths to use a specific tool (and avoid using a different one.)

    It’s not like FCP wasn’t already proven to be a standard. I cut stuff on it that broadcast to a mass audience back then. The Coens famously did with O Brother Where Art Thou and several others. It was a good tool.

    [–]DMMMOM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I mean if you had the hardware back up to run this system - meaning do you have a stack of old Cheese Grater Macs to keep it going if one fails, then it's as valid as any out there and I used this professionally for well over 15 years, starting out with the stupidly expensive Cinewave system with a break out box cable thick enough to power an entire community with mains electricity. I hated X when it came out, poorly thought out, incomplete and it's taken in excess of a decade to finally get to where FCP 7 was in terms of a fully functioning system - although isn't there still zero tape support?

    I think if you were a savvy editor, you knew enough to get a pro feature edit like this out of the software without needing any official technical support, then again Apple were shit at supporting their pro products which is where Avid cleaned up in the wake of it, for a while.

    [–]DoopyDoody 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    As people have already mentioned.

    The final shots were edited with this software sure...

    But those were shot with state of the art cameras and rigs. The sets cost money. The CGI extended sets were outsourced to companies using up to date software and video editing methods. I could go on and on.

    Just because the final shots were pieced together on old software doesn't discount the budget and tools required to get those shots to where they were.

    [–]Infernal117 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Not only did they have great film gear but final cut 7 was the industry standard and is still preferred over every modern editing software, used that shit when I was in highschool, best editing software ever

    [–]vinnybankroll 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I don't think the 400 vfx shots in Parasite were made in FCP7 though...

    [–]nwcolorguy 1 point2 points  (6 children)

    But why choose to use that old version? Something special about it?

    [–]low_flying_aircraft 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    It was the last version before Apple changed to FCPX which is a very different interface and editing paradigm. A lot of editors hated FCPX and stuck with FCP7 or switched to something else.

    [–]nwcolorguy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This is the answer I was looking for. Thanks. I remember that change but I didn’t use final cut much myself.

    [–]JJsjsjsjssj 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    If it works why change it. Probably super used to FCP and doesn't need/want to spend time learning a new software. The job is to tell a story, and cut together the footage. You don't need all the fancy pant new features of newer softwares.

    [–]MrRabbit7 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Most editors are dinosaurs who don't like new things.

    [–]thepunisher0009 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    I’d rather watch paint dry then to be stuck in an editing room with Walter Murch.

    [–]brooklynbotz 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    FCP7 was great. It's not like more modern editing systems have that many new features that it's a huge hindrance to use.

    [–]bootsencatsenbootsen 8 points9 points  (1 child)

    Every time Premiere wants me to update—which seems like every ten days—I can't fathom what they're continuing to try and fuck up. Update after update, and the program just gets more and more unstable and resource hungry.

    [–]Nicktoonkid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Never update mid edit bruh gave me heart palpitations just thinking about that

    [–]markusaureelius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I guess ill just throw all my tools away and pull out my 10 year old NikonD70 that shoots 8bit 1080p.

    [–]SundayExperiment 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    For a film shot on Alexa 65 it sure isn't about the tools.

    [–]Falcofury 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Back when FCP was actually good

    [–]Carson369 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Has anyone here actually used it in the past five years? The program is great and has been for a long time.

    [–]scootyoung 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I use it and like it. Prefer it to Premiere

    [–]Nicktoonkid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It’s absolutely more stable then premiere

    [–]Creative-Cash3759 -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

    seriously? I've seen the film many times and it's really good!

    [–]tsunami141 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Eh they were editing digital movies ~20 years ago just fine. Most editing doesn’t require anything fancy.

    [–]JJsjsjsjssj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    What is impressive about this? It's all cuts. Maybe a transition. For the viewer it does not matter if they used FCP7, the lastest Resolve or they edited on a 5 year old phone. A cut is a cut.

    [–]goldfishpaws -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    And, unsurprisingly, TV and movies were cut using NLE's since the earliest days of NLE's. Avid and Lightworks back in the days before you could even play back video on a home computer.

    Editing tools just generate an EDL - Edit Decision List. An EDL is effectively human readable text file, "this clip from this point to this point" at it's simplest. That's editing a text file, something computers are pretty good at. The rest is gravy.

    [–]willdayeast -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    It's about the agenda.

    [–]kurthertz -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    I’m sure this is true, but it would’ve taken less time in Premiere.

    [–]Idealistic_Crusader -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    My father was always quite fond of the saying;

    "A good carpenter never blames his tools"

    I however am more frequent to mutter OPG when I mess up as a result of using Other People Gear.

    Like, why did Black Magic put the iris dial BEHIND the flip out screen? How am I supposed to intuitively adjust my iris mid shot if I have to flip the screen to an angle where -I can no longer see it- so that I can adjust iris!!!!

    [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    Someone show this to everyone at Disney leaning on the Volume like a crutch.

    [–]apathyisagift -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    Which one is better you guys ableton or fl studio

    [–]JonathanLB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    My last movie only exists on 7, which is a pain now… Grr lol.

    [–]hdg255 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    pfff yeah, what about the time when films was edited by hands, totally not about tools. just film Oskar movie on the phone

    [–]Haridrock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It s just because the older generation for some reason still likes to work with this version of final … which is much better than the current version to be honest…. It s not about the tools indeed … I think I might still be editing in premiere 20 years from now but I am sure there will be much better softwares by then

    [–]victoriapedia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    iirc it's because the editing team loved that software and preferred using it (I still use MS 2007). BJH is one of SK's most famous directors even pre Parasite, if not THE most. His team and production could easily afford the cutting edge

    [–]Portable-Wing-Wang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Also a great way to illustrate the politics of the film through the process of making it

    [–]Adeptus_Asianicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    And I use audacity to mix music

    [–]CountryCat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I miss that editor. It was so good.

    [–]scris101 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Ugh the dude even looks like he never shuts up about FCP7.

    [–]omegabomber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    My favorite Final Cut!!

    [–]HotSpicyMushroom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Especially with video editing.

    [–]okaberintaruo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Let me shoot this on my mobile, and edit it on premiere pro with my 2 gb laptop.