FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX or Not?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Steve Connor
FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 7:23:07 am

So has anyone actually changed their opinions on FCPX in the last couple of months?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Philip Davies
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 11:20:44 am

Fundamentally I think it's a winner - I didn't at first.

I can honestly say though that no woman, let alone a piece of software, has ever caused me so many frustrated outbursts. In retrospect, much of that was down to old habits and now that I've settled into a workflow, I think I've made the right decision sticking with FC.

It's still got more bugs than a Swahili tuberculosis ward but I can just about put up with multiple force quits a day because, like a Mac, it is so efficient at restarting itself.

A year or two from now it will be awesome.


Return to posts index

Dean Neal
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 12:14:04 pm

I am definitely warming to it.

FCP X's embracing of true Metadata foundations and better content management/control will be brilliant.

By housekeeping our content, this will provide efficiencies in editing.

I like the new timeline, and if we hadn't already seen iMovie, many of us (not all I know) would call it revolutionary.

The ROLES feature is a good methodology to deal with workflows externally moving forward.

I like the integration of some of the components of color and SoundTrack Pro into FCP X.

I know these products were great on their own, however I know a lot of editors who loathed round-tripping and by bringing these products into FCP X - that's a positive as far as I am concerned.

I will write up a full commentary on it when I have finished further exploration.

YES - there are some missing pieces for sure which is well documented on here (Multi-cam, Video Monitor etc.)

It's also still a bit buggy but that is to be expected.

FCP X is a solid foundation with reasonable potential - but there is more needed before it will be accepted by the wider POST community for sure.

Dean Neal...


Return to posts index


Mark Dobson
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 12:24:25 pm

I've been using FCPX exclusively since it was released in June.

My opinion of the software changes constantly as I get more used to it. Basically I think it has a lot going for it. I also think it will take a fair while to get totally up to speed on it. Every movement still requires thought.

I spent years using and learning FCP 7 and always felt I was still only scratching the surface of it's capability. On the surface FCP X seems a lot simpler - but I've found this to be an illusion - it's possible to to accomplish extremely complex editing tasks but only through adopting a different mindset.

Initially I installed it on the same drive as FCP 7. I've got a 2009 2 x 2.8 Quad Core and upgraded the memory to 14GB. I found the performance really unreliable - spinning wheels, crashes etc and with the launch of Lion decided to give it it's own partitioned drive.

Well things didn't improve that much. So my whole experience of the software have been tempered with frustration. Following the upgrade to 10.0.1 my latest set of problems involved the undo function not working. I eventually realised that that also meant that nothing I was doing was being saved. I would recommence work and get into a Groundhog Day loop of re colour correcting etc.

My workaround for this was to File Z after every action and quit as soon as it stopped working. That together with constantly trashing the preferences, initially manually and more recently using Digital Rebellions excellent Preference Manager. Allowed me to get the job out the door.

With no deadline looming I then decided to trash FCPX and do a clean re-install from the App Store. Well, fingers crossed that seems to have resolved the issue. So maybe that's a lesson learnt, to not install an upgrade over existing software but go for a clean install.

Despite all of these problems I have produced 5 or 6 productions using FCP X. There are lot’s of things I really like and dislike in equal measure.

I find organizing clips in the Event browser really quick. I don’t use any of the built in analysis tools and I also only reference files on their drives rather than have the software re-transcode and duplicate them. If data storage were not an issue I might just let it get on with it but with HD material taking up roughly a 1GB a minute it is a real issue.

I don’t miss having tracks in the timeline and if one wants to emulate FCP7 one can do through using the P function and layering files in a similar fashion. I find the trim tools and the precision editor really easy to use and editing audio has become a very precise task now.

The ability to create and manipulate Compound Clips is one of the biggest plusses for me. It declutters the workspace and makes moving programme sections around really easy.

FCP X has to be seen in tandem with Motion 5 – and I’m sure that in the future the two programmes will actually integrate. Why the roundtripping function between FCPX and Motion is not active is a complete mystery.

It really is early days still with this software. Anyone using it professionally is acting as a beta tester. We ‘ve had one upgrade already with another one due in a few months time. I think by this time next year most of the core problems will have been resolved and some of the missing features and problems, I/O issues, external monitoring, multicam will have been resolved.

But I think that for many this software will never cut the mustard. Oliver Peters has really nailed some of the issues in his FCP X road blocks blog;

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/fcp-x-road-blocks/

But for someone like me I feel FCP X can only get better with each upgrade. Like many small production companies we do everything in house now. Music production, graphics, color correction, etc. And that's what FCP X has been designed for. I can’t see it being used in the Broadcast market place apart from one off documentaries and shorts.

I feel that Apple are committed to redress many of the shortfalls identified after the launch. I feel they really upset a lot of people by giving Final Cut Studio the EOL sticker. Adobe Premier Pro and Avid have already benefitted greatly from this change of direction.

I think that by now most people will already have decided which direction to go in.


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 1:08:49 pm

File Z?


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 4:44:50 pm

File Z = cmd Z


Return to posts index


Tony Badea
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 1:48:32 pm

I love it. I've used Motion from 1.0 so the transition from FCP7 to FCPX wasn't that difficult. In my case, I feel Motion was the key factor, I prefer it over AE (I started my motion graphics career with AE, just feel at home with Motion) and FCPX and Motion are closer than ever.


Return to posts index

Owen Wexler
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 2:30:36 pm

I finally got to test drive FCPX at the WIFV Non-Linear Editing Demo in DC last month.

Surprisingly, it's not horrible.

I could use it if I really had to.

I mean I'd rather not. I will still not be using it for my work or personal projects, as it is still missing too many features that I need and doesn't really fit my muscle memory.

But if I somehow get a decently-paying client who wants me to cut on his or her FCPX system (unlikely as that is), I am not going to turn down money for a petty reason like not being 100% into the editing software.

Also, as someone whose skill set includes color grading, I had to give the color board a whirl. Surprisingly it was pretty easy for me to figure out and wrap my head around, but it's no Color. I still prefer three-ways, curves, and secondaries over the dots, but I could use the dots if I had to.

Cinematographer - Editor - Motion Graphics Artist - Colorist

http://www.owenbwexler.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 3:21:05 pm

Hated it at first. Or rather hated the way it looked. I was suspicious of its simplified UI and especially its preferences. Also it's default configuration of filmstrip view made me want to throw it across the room.

However, having found a UI configuration I can work with and just some honest time with it, I've grown to really love some of its capabilities (though with caveats).

I love its new media organization. Giving users a choice between organizing how they've always done it, and organizing for you by putting everything in one place (ala Avid) was a great choice. I hate the fact that I can't override its offline, reconnect feature, although I will say it's not often wrong.

I absolutely love keyword collections although I would have preferred they not rename everything. Why these couldn't just be called bins is beyond me (same with event/project and sequence/project). Organizing projects, especially projects with large numbers of clips is quite a bit easier with collections. I however, find the auto analysis feature to be pretty dumb still although for single camera scripted work, it might be a starting point for the AE.

I've never had the problem with the magnetic timeline that other people seem to have. I tend to put all my clips together to start and then push them apart later. And I especially like the Append Edit. It's nice not having to care where the playhead or skimmer is when dropping a clip into the timeline. I still hate not being able to perform a rolling trim on connected audio clips or even just the embedded audio of two clips beside each other in the primary storyline.

All in all, its beginning to win me over (I already prefer using it to using FCP 7 but that might just be because I like discovering things and there's very little I don't know about FCP 7). It needs some technical upgrades (bug fixes, ext video, more compatibility with other production programs), and some workflow upgrades (multicam, channel expanded audio, beefed up Timeline Mode) and some visual UI upgrades (better timeline view options, user defined workspaces).

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index


Devin Crane
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 3:46:06 pm

So far just using it for special projects involving a lot of h.264 and avchd from DSLRs. For this it works great, for regular TV broadcasts needs better timecode support before I can be more efficient with it. We plan to move to it when the next updates come out.



Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 4:10:04 pm

I started using this from day one. Since I don't need to send anything out to protools or a colorist, I don't miss that.

My first project took me about 3 times as long because of the paradigm shift in the timeline, but I'm getting used to it.

I have a larger paid project with a tight deadline, and I decided to take the chance and do it on FCX. The organization tools are great. I'm really loving the skimmer these days, once I got used to it. I'm getting used to the magnetic timeline, but I'm still not convinced it's any faster. It's much quicker to start with, but by the time I make all of my audio trims, I'd say it's taken me longer.

It's quite a change, and my brain hurt trying to see the path through the interface to get me to my final product. It required "thinking different", and I can't honestly recommend it to people using FCP7. I can laud the great new tools, but also talk about the frustrations with the bugs and the missing features, so with my friends I give a marginal thumbs up. Unless they're the adventurous type, I tell them to stick with what works.

I understand the "version 1.0" nature of this thing, but I really wish they could have found a way to keep more of the the good things from FCP7.

Meanwhile, I'm addicted to the organizational tools, so I'm continuing to use it. They just can't come up with updates fast enough for me however.

I could use another one right about now.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 4:33:36 pm

Curious Mark, what things you would like to have been kept from FCP 7 (aside from obviously mulicam I suppose)?

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index


Mark Morache
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 6:51:43 pm

[Andy Neil] "Curious Mark, what things you would like to have been kept from FCP 7 (aside from obviously mulicam I suppose)?"

I miss my automation gain. There's probably something buried in an audio effect.

I can't version my edits like I could in 7. I can create a duplicate timeline, but either without the renders, or duplicating all the render media.

I can't slip a clip in the timeline without moving the attached clips.

Copying and pasting just the attributes I want is a HUGE fail.

Favorite effects I miss. Yes, I can save a particular setting and recall it, but it's nowhere as simple as dragging your effect with it's parameters into a bin, then applying that to another clip, or group of clips.

I miss just seeing the opacity line on the video in the timeline. To see it in X I need to first open the video animation, then click the teeny little box to expand the opacity.

There is no autosave vault. Yes, it is needed. I can't tell you how many times my ass has been saved with the autosave vault.

Clip relinking.

CMD [ and ] to raise and lower the clip volume 3db.

Selective exporting of the timeline. If in and out don't work, perhaps we could use markers.

Speaking of in and out, the points disappear far to easily.

I can't consolidate my media anymore. Perhaps that's not so necessary since I'm not on tape anymore.

Even little things like the need to hit CTL-P before I type in a timecode. With a clip selected, why can't I just start typing in the timecode?

Reverse match-frame to find a frame in the timeline.

Dupe detection.

The list goes on, but these are the things I used the most that are no longer with us.

I'm sure many of these will be added, but so many workarounds.

Aren't there things you miss? Besides the multiclip?

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 7:33:03 pm

"Aren't there things you miss? Besides the multiclip?"

Oh fully. Most of your list actually. Especially the 3db shortcut. I would add audio mixer, being able to customize clip size in the timeline ( the sizes they give me are not well suited to audio. I also miss the edit selection tool for lassoing multiple edit points and moving them at the same time.

However a couple of your missing features can be regained in FCPX. Slip an slide edits can be performed with the trim tool. I just posted a tutorial here on the cow about it.

Also, someone suggested reassigning CTL+P to the number pad enter key. It's much more elegant for typing in timecodes (unless you work on a laptop).

You can also save favorite effects with a compound clip in your event browser although it's nowhere near as elegant a solution.

In general though, I miss what you miss. I was just curious.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 7:42:09 pm

[Andy Neil] " Slip an slide edits can be performed with the trim tool. I just posted a tutorial here on the cow about it."

Yes, It was a good tutorial.

What's your workaround for slipping the clip without moving the attached media?

and more things I miss:

I miss the replace key. Replace from start and end are good, but there should also be a replace that uses the cursor as the reference.

I used the term automation gain before when I meant normalization gain. I actually miss both.

I miss the duration window. I used that quite a bit, and I don't fancy hitting CTL-D every time I want to see the duration.

I'll think of more.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index


Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 7:52:18 pm

"What's your workaround for slipping the clip without moving the attached media?"

I confess I'm not sure I know what you mean? Are you talking about clips connected to the clip you're sliding?

As far as replace, I totally agree! My next tutorial talks about at actually. Four ways to replace a clip, and not one of them the way I'm used to.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 8:11:27 pm

[Andy Neil] "I'm not sure I know what you mean? Are you talking about clips connected to the clip you're sliding?"

Yes.

Don't you ever want to slip the clip, and leave all the connected clips exactly where they are? Perhaps it's a bit of music, or a soundbite, and it's perfectly placed in the timeline, but you decide you want to slip the clip just a little bit because of the action in the shot.

Presently, there is no easy way to slip the clip without moving the attached clips. I may have a couple of b-roll shots and a sound effect or a soundbite. Currently I need to slip the clip, then move each attached clip back to where it was.

Sometimes I can move the connection point to a different clip, freeing up the clip I want to slip, but not always.

So now I need to do it in two steps to slip the clip then move the attached media back.

It was a problem that didn't exist before the connected clip paradigm in FCX.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 4:51:34 am

[Mark Morache] "Don't you ever want to slip the clip, and leave all the connected clips exactly where they are?"

Ok, I understand you now. You're right it is cumbersome in those circumstances. Ideally, you should be able to press a modifier key like CMD while slipping the clip and it would allow you to slip a clip relative to the connected clips. I think I'll send that along as a feature request.

I'm not sure what your workaround is, I do one of two things: I either matchframe back to the original clip, find my new in or out point and do a replace edit so that my connected clips don't move, or else I perform the slip, keeping an eye on the tool tip that tells me how many frames I'm slipping, and then select the connected clips and type + or - the final number to jump them back to their point.

But a quick modifier would be perfect and easy to implement.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:12:35 pm

FCPX obviously has a lot of issues, pretty confident this has been covered, Oliver is mostly correct, I do however disagree with his claim the GUI is slower than FCP7, I haven't found that to be the case at all.

The slip behaviour is just an example of another one of the annoying issues FCPX has.

Having said that for my workflow FCPX works well, I've been using it exclusively for a couple of months on a range of projects and have found that overall, for me, it hasn't caused any serious issues. On the whole it has improved my speed of working and there is an awful lot I like about it.

I fully understand how it doesn't and may never work for a large number of people in the industry. The next few months will show how serious Apple are about reaching the higher end of the market, if they are at all.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 2:14:09 pm

I believe you posted this in the wrong thread.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Tahir Ramzan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 2:22:18 pm

??

Tahir Ramzan


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:24:40 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I believe you posted this in the wrong thread.
"


You are correct!

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 4:39:43 pm

I've played around with FCPX, but I haven't had the downtime to give it a shot with an actual project yet.

I think the real turning point will be when Apple gets their APIs fleshed out and we see some actual plugins start being released, instead of what I've seen come out so far (I have no actual use for the plugins I've seen so far, even from MB).


Return to posts index

Andrew Hays
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 5:41:07 pm

I've played around with the trial version of the software. It takes some time to wrap your head around the new paradigm. I see the potential, but I think they need to fix a couple of things first before it can truly shine.

Things are gettin' interesting...


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 6:22:26 pm

I've been using it mostly for dealing with some AVCHD stuff (conversion/downscaling 1080 > 720) to be edited in FCPX.
I recognize that I haven't get too in deep with FCPX. Sincerely, I have many other thing to learn, better than doing the same thing in a different way. A new way that, I feel, it won't be of much help for my self: Media Managing or speed are not my problems.
Things like clips collapsing sounds like a kids problem when you have been editing in Betacam and making and making postproduction with a single channel FX generator.

I consider it as pre-edit application, which, in my case, complicates the workflow, but I really understand the priceless utility for many other people/workflows.
I see the "track-less paradigma" as fiction: FCPX hid them in Motion. I will believe in trackless video editing the day Motion will work that way.
Bugs and functionality are not a big concern. Bugs should be able to be fixed, and functionality added. All is about the kind of application that Apple will decide to build.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 6:44:08 pm

"I see the "track-less paradigma" as fiction: FCPX hid them in Motion. I will believe in trackless video editing the day Motion will work that way."

Motion doesn't work in tracks. It never has. It works in layers like AE. There's a difference. One of the biggest being that you can only have one clip per layer.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Tahir Ramzan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 9:08:42 pm

Just got FCPX today.. quick look around it and all seems good..very easy to use. New to Video editing in a professional way, but was always put off the whole FCP 7 package as was taking too long to learn. Had FCE Express for a while and did not enjoy it. For me FCPX seem great so far.

Tahir Ramzan


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 9:24:28 pm

My opinion hasn't changed at all. There's a lot to like in FCPX, but I need more grown-up features for it to be my main in NLE.

More importantly, I need to trust that Apple is in this for the long haul. I need openness and proper communication, not the over zealous use of NDAs and the biased "opinion" of educators, bloggers and others with too much self-interest and not enough objectivity. The software can be fixed, I'm not sure about the attitude, it needs a change of culture at Apple, a shift in their corporate paradigm...

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Tahir Ramzan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 10:15:20 pm

Agree about Apple and its attitude towards its trusted productivity users..E.G just look at what they have done with Mobile Me galleries. Such a profit making company to decide to just scrap what they promoted and pushed us, their customers to use is beyond a joke for me and my friends. Certain friends have 7 years of work on Mobile Me galleries.
SmugMug all the way for me now.
I would leave Apple, but its still one of the most stable platforms.

Tahir Ramzan


Return to posts index

Erik Lundberg
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 8, 2011 at 10:01:29 pm

I've been playing with FCP X in my spare time (the little I have of that kind) since the release in june. And I'm constantly changing my mind back and forth. I see great potential in it, and I'm really eager to see what problems apple will solve and features they will add in the near future. At the same time I'm really frustrated by the fact that the software don't do some of the things we really need in our workflow today. But I still have high hopes that this WILL shortly be a splendid peace of software that we can use to do really creative stuff on a day to day basis, and that it will support our workflows of today AND tomorrow.

And be flexible like nothing else. Please be.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 12:00:07 am

well, no. I'm still curmudgeonly.

CUUURRRmuddgeeooonnlllyy


This application is dead in the water isn't it?
I mean isn't this thing just floating dead in the pond?
nevermind that shake, soundtrack pro, dvd studio and colour are out back with their necks wrung but..

this release completely killed the existing FCP eco-system, the trainers like steve martin are increasingly desperate in their appearances, wes plate is gone and there is little or no adoption from educational, broadcast, or, god love apple - even the snow boarders -
isn't it dead?

Its not an editing system - its a software mess of GTD tagging, iphoto events, imovie timelines, motion templates - its not an editing system.
Its dead.

In 12 months, i venture from my trash bin - its a 99 dollar throwaway to pick up the video pagemaker market.

FCP is dead. Our whole entire thing is dead.

and now I have to learn avid. and so thank you cruel fates.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Daniel Annefelt
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 12:38:34 am

[Aindreas Gallagher]
"its not an editing system.
Its dead."


Whoa, back up, slow down.
Now. Explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.

regards
.-daniel


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:23:25 am

[Andy Neil] "Motion doesn't work in tracks. It never has. It works in layers like AE. There's a difference. One of the biggest being that you can only have one clip per layer."
Sure, there are differences. Layers is just one of the natural qualities of any track based system.
That get lost in a system that manage just data/metada instead of video, so is necessary to resource to a second application (Motion, AE,..) and to a round-trip workflow.
We just have flown back in time to when editing and postproduction where two different jobs.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:37:56 am

I do broadcast post finishing (grade & sound post). FCPX is effectively useless as an editing app in my workflow. Until robust OMF and XML round tripping, ability to open years of FCP legacy projects and proper monitoring via Kona/ Matrox/ Decklink cards is available, it remains a curio.

As broadcast dies sometime in the next decade, it might become a mature app and useful to my business. I resent Apple trying to engineer the demise of broadcast like they have with floppy drives and bluray, regardless of whether history eventual proves their point. Software and hardware companies are best when they coerce with superior product but not when they decide a formats fate and force it upon you. Secrecy and forced legacy make me nervous of any supplier.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 4:41:04 am

[Rafael Amador] "Sure, there are differences. Layers is just one of the natural qualities of any track based system."

I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Layers and tracks are two separate things. Layers are not qualities of a track based system. They are qualities of layers. FCPX does not have tracks, but they DO have layers.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:25:19 pm

[Andy Neil] "I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Layers and tracks are two separate things. Layers are not qualities of a track based system. They are qualities of layers. FCPX does not have tracks, but they DO have layers."
So when you pile tracks in FCP, tracks do not act as layers?
An upper track do not mean a physical position of the picture over the lower track?
An order in the rendering pipeline?
Call it layers or tracks, is the same story even if the functionality is different (they've been designed with different purposes). The idea is the same.
The Lego-like time-line (that many people try to escape going to FCPX) is unavoidable as soon as you try to make some elaborated composition.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:42:52 pm

[Rafael Amador] "So when you pile tracks in FCP, tracks do not act as layers? "

Sure, but they can also be mutually exclusive, and you don't have a choice. In FCPX you can have layers, but no tracks.



[Rafael Amador] "An upper track do not mean a physical position of the picture over the lower track?"

This is where it's interesting with FCPx. With some of the new composite modes the visual layer order doesn't matter. You can have a title visibly under the primary storyline, but it shows like a normal title should over the video in the viewer. Combine that with compound clips, and you can have lots of possibilities.

[Rafael Amador] "An order in the rendering pipeline?"

Not necessarily

[Rafael Amador] "Call it layers or tracks, is the same story even if the functionality is different (they've been designed with different purposes). The idea is the same."

I think the only idea that's the same is a way of organizing your media in time. FCPX is a new approach to this.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 6:39:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "So when you pile tracks in FCP, tracks do not act as layers? "

Sure, but they can also be mutually exclusive, and you don't have a choice. In FCPX you can have layers, but no tracks."

Kind of possible endless discussion.
In a classic video editing application makes no sense having layer if you have no way to pile the stuff. This is done by moving tracks as layers.
Obviously, as long as FCPX lack tracks must implement other method of layering. l

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "An upper track do not mean a physical position of the picture over the lower track?"

This is where it's interesting with FCPx. With some of the new composite modes the visual layer order doesn't matter. You can have a title visibly under the primary storyline, but it shows like a normal title should over the video in the viewer. Combine that with compound clips, and you can have lots of possibilities."

With some of the new composite modes.
Your example is like a kind of Downstream Key. Good.

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "An order in the rendering pipeline?"
Not necessarily"

Don't catch you.
The picture shown is always the top, unless you apply some kind of filter, motion effect or compositing mode. Composting modes are also applied from the top to the bottom. Change the order, change the results.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think the only idea that's the same is a way of organizing your media in time. FCPX is a new approach to this.
"

FCPX just order things sequentially. Time is a result.
In FCP time is absolute. You set timing and duration by mean of editing, not with old fashioned slugs.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:56:10 am

[Rafael Amador] "In a classic video editing application makes no sense having layer if you have no way to pile the stuff. This is done by moving tracks as layers."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't layer tracks as they are fixed. You can only move the contents of the track to another track. You can simply flip flop a1 with a10, or v1 with v5.

[Rafael Amador] "Your example is like a kind of Downstream Key. Good."

Mmmm kinda but not really? Here's a picture of it for you. Look on the right side of the timeline. That's a visible title under the video. Downstream keys happen after everything else (hence down stream):

http://i1.creativecow.net/u/42171/0_mrlawrence.png

[Rafael Amador] "The picture shown is always the top, unless you apply some kind of filter, motion effect or compositing mode. Composting modes are also applied from the top to the bottom. Change the order, change the results."

Yes, most of that is true, but FCPX it's a bit different. A broadcast safe filter won't work unless the clip is compounded due to the rendering order.

[Rafael Amador] "FCPX just order things sequentially. Time is a result.
In FCP time is absolute. You set timing and duration by mean of editing, not with old fashioned slugs. "


The gaps (or old fashioned slugs, you call them) represent no difference than an empty space in FCP7. Except they have more purpose and you can easily set how long they are. They are trimmable, and allow clip connections. They are way more controllable than empty space on a timeline. Yes, they are required in the primary, but they make sense in X's timeline and offer very simple control.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:11:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't layer tracks as they are fixed. You can only move the contents of the track to another track. You can simply flip flop a1 with a10, or v1 with v5."

FWIW this is actually something that you can do in Media Composer - option drag the track to move it up or down. Moderately handy - though I can't rememeber the last time I actually wanted to do this!

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 1:13:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Moderately handy - though I can't rememeber the last time I actually wanted to do this!"

:)

Thanks for the info. It wasn't possible in FCP at all, but I have not used Avid since the 90s. Uncompressed SD. WooHoo!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 4:51:36 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't layer tracks as they are fixed. You can only move the contents of the track to another track. You can simply flip flop a1 with a10, or v1 with v5."


I guess you are right technically, but you can use the "t" key to select everything on a single track, and the shift drag to another track, which is, in relation to media, effectively the same thing.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 5:24:18 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I guess you are right technically, but you can use the "t" key to select everything on a single track, and the shift drag to another track, which is, in relation to media, effectively the same thing."

Unless there's something on your destination track. If the destination track is empty, then yes.

For instance, if you have an 8 channel deliverable and the specs change, you can't simply switch two tracks without reshuffling the deck. I'm not saying it can't be done, it can, but this is still keeping a1 as a1 which is what Rafael and I are discussing (tracks vs layers, and tracks AS layers, and rendering). You can't make a1 become a5 without moving/copying/pasting a couple of times (like it sounds like you can in Avid).

In X, all this doesn't matter as Roles can sort it out, layer order be damned. It does need a target system so the "Dialogue" Role for instance, can go to the corresponding Channel1 of the QT.

And as far as video, you don't even have to have those in stacking order, either. "Nonsense!" the X-detractors say. "Sweet!" says the X-likers.

And around and around we go.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 5:34:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Unless there's something on your destination track. If the destination track is empty, then yes.

For instance, if you have an 8 channel deliverable and the specs change, you can't simply switch two tracks without reshuffling the deck."


Sure you can. You just add a track. And then delete the one you are moving from. But further, for deliverables, you don't even need to do that. You just reassign the channel out. 2 becomes 5, 5 becomes 7, 3 becomes 9. All simple clicks.

[Jeremy Garchow] "In X, all this doesn't matter as Roles can sort it out, layer order be damned. It does need a target system so the "Dialogue" Role for instance, can go to the corresponding Channel1 of the QT.
"


I'm thinking that you don't export a lot of audio stems. It really is far simpler in FCS than you seem to think it is.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 5:49:45 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Sure you can. You just add a track. And then delete the one you are moving from."

Yeah, you make a 9th track, copy a5 to a9, then copy a1 to a5, then copy a9 to a1, then delete a9. I know what to do.


[Chris Harlan] "I'm thinking that you don't export a lot of audio stems. It really is far simpler in FCS than you seem to think it is."

No, I get stems from my audio mixer. I send him OMF.

I do export embedded multichannel QTs, though.

[Chris Harlan] "You just reassign the channel out. 2 becomes 5, 5 becomes 7, 3 becomes 9. All simple clicks."

So are roles. That's my point.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:03:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "You just reassign the channel out. 2 becomes 5, 5 becomes 7, 3 becomes 9. All simple clicks."

So are roles. That's my point.
"


Ah, sorry. I thought you were making the point the Roles was superior to tracks. I agree that Roles do almost as much as tracks do, without--of course--the visual organization.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:24:11 pm

[Chris Harlan] "without--of course--the visual organization."

And without having to totally reshuffle your timeline when changes come or specs change.

I really want to see a role sortable timeline. That would be the bees knees!

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:38:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And without having to totally reshuffle your timeline when changes come or specs change."

Jeremy, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I just do not understand what you mean. Why do I have to totally reshuffle my timeline? All I have to do is reassign the channel out for any give track and it is done. If I have SFX on 7&8 but my client suddenly wants them on 15&16 all I have to do is a one simple click for each tack to reroute them. How is that somehow more difficult?

Maybe I just get what you are trying to say. I never have to "totally reshuffle" my timeline, even when delivery specs change. Am I misunderstanding you?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:16:37 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Jeremy, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I just do not understand what you mean. Why do I have to totally reshuffle my timeline? All I have to do is reassign the channel out for any give track and it is done. If I have SFX on 7&8 but my client suddenly wants them on 15&16 all I have to do is a one simple click for each tack to reroute them. How is that somehow more difficult?

Maybe I just get what you are trying to say. I never have to "totally reshuffle" my timeline, even when delivery specs change. Am I misunderstanding you?
"


No, but for the deliverable, then channel 9 on your timeline is now 16 on your tape. I don't work that way. If there's a problem and the dupe house calls and says, channel 16 is screwed, now I have to know that 16 is now 9. Hopefully, X gets a visible and virtual patch panel just like this. It would be awesome.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 12:26:55 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "No, but for the deliverable, then channel 9 on your timeline is now 16 on your tape. I don't work that way. If there's a problem and the dupe house calls and says, channel 16 is screwed, now I have to know that 16 is now 9. "

No, you just have to look at your channel output. But also, that's what slates are for, and what standards are for. Studios and Networks, with no exception I know of, try to standardize deliverables across the board.

I really do not see an issue here.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:34:31 am

i am the four year old - I'm throwing my toys out of the pram.

apple have not produced an editing system. it was not built by editors, editors are on record saying their advice was ignored, a half decade FCP engineer confirms that professional practices were completely jettisoned in apple's thinking -

http://sachin.posterous.com/why-apple-built-final-cut-pro-x

they, apple, made a profit play for a pagemaker video market, and in so doing comprehensively destroyed the professional foundation that was FCP studio.

FCP is dead. we are, waiting for godot style, staring blankly at a soon to be 99 bucks HD imovie. god knows nobody ever used motion. why would we care that its messed up all into this stupid new imovie thing? why would anyone care about either messed up application now? All we ever cared about was FCP as was really - that and colour. shake before they killed it. Its just a whale graveyard of dead professional bones at apple. there is no pro apps anymore. we're whistling past the graveyard.

FCP is truly dead. As john Gruber puts it - we've got an appstore Imovie extreme.

there is no industry or professional pickup. FCP as we understood it is dead. God knows its a black dead letter in London.

Its dead because apple comprehensively killed it - its done.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 4:17:46 pm

Many posters, claiming as evidence that Apple has not given up on the Pro (complex workflow) market have asked the rhetorical question "Why would Apple have enabled 2k & 4K workflows in FCPX if they weren't interested in the "Pro" market."

The 4s has given us the answer. Apple doesn't see 2k and 4k as uniquely high end capabilities. Their including it in their Iphones.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 3:42:49 am

FCX doesn't work for anything I edit...except for maybe family home movies. It doesn't do OMF so I cannot export audio to my audio mixer, it doesn't have proper color correction, nor any way to export for outside color correction (Color, Resolve), it doesn't allow me to export PROPER audio stems (ROLES tried to address this need...failed). It doesn't allow monitoring on an external broadcast monitor.

My projects have tight deadlines, and strict requirements, so I don't have time to learn a whole new way to edit, nor to figure out how to get this application to possibly do everything I need to do. Why they changed the way editing is done is beyond me. The way it does things is wrong for pretty much everything I do. And I don't have time to fiddle with in the meantime and wait for it to eventually do what I need.

Avid and Premiere do what I need to do (well, Premiere still lacks a couple things I need)...but in the meantime, I am still relying on FCP 7, and doing some work with Avid.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 5:25:14 pm

[Shane Ross] " It doesn't do OMF so I cannot export audio to my audio mixer, it doesn't have proper color correction, nor any way to export for outside color correction (Color, Resolve), it doesn't allow me to export PROPER audio stems (ROLES tried to address this need...failed). It doesn't allow monitoring on an external broadcast monitor."

This is all going to change. How do Roles fail for you? I haven't seen stems enabled like this ever without doing each track one by one.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:28:23 am

[Shane Ross] "My projects have tight deadlines, and strict requirements, so I don't have time to learn a whole new way to edit, nor to figure out how to get this application to possibly do everything I need to do. Why they changed the way editing is done is beyond me. The way it does things is wrong for pretty much everything I do. And I don't have time to fiddle with in the meantime and wait for it to eventually do what I need. "
My projects, hardly have a a tight deadline. In fact is my self the one who has to set the deadline to my customer for conforming (this is Laos :-).
I could have time to try to get more in deep in FCPX is I knew I could do better movies (more beautiful, refined and interesting) than with FCP, but I don't think FCPX might help me on that.

I'm thinking going AVID, as long as that AMA do not become a problem for me.
sure, i don't gonna get in any kind of Avid storage system.
Rafael
PS: I'f I go Avid, expect for me many questions Shane.

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 2:55:26 pm

[Shane Ross] "it doesn't allow me to export PROPER audio stems (ROLES tried to address this need...failed)."

Hey Shane. I'm curious how Roles failed to address exporting stems for you. I haven't played with them all that much myself, so I'd like your input on what exactly is wrong with the Roles feature, and what it needs to work properly.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 3:36:34 pm

[Andy Neil] "Hey Shane. I'm curious how Roles failed to address exporting stems for you."

Shane says to not give advice on #FCPX to him as he's never using the program again. Ever.

:P


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:05:09 pm

I need a full mix, plus mix minus music, Plus all elements separate. Roles doesn't do that.

But there are so many other reasons that I won't be using FCX, so many features that are wrong or missing, that I won't be going near it. Jeremys right, trying to explain the work around to get this to work is pointless. FCX won't be a part of any project I work on. Simply doesnt have my needs in mind.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:18:02 pm

[Shane Ross] "I need a full mix, plus mix minus music, Plus all elements separate. Roles doesn't do that. "

Say what? I know you don't care, but it's not true. Using Roles/Subroles, I think you could do this in two passes.

One for the full mix, one for everything else in whatever combo you need. Literally.

You can even go so far as to name the roles, "Track" and have subroles "Track 1 - Track 16".

Anyway, not trying to argue here, just mentioning for future readers.

Cheers.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:41:52 pm

[Shane Ross] "Jeremys right, trying to explain the work around to get this to work is pointless. FCX won't be a part of any project I work on. Simply doesnt have my needs in mind."

I wasn't attempting to suggest a work around, I was honestly curious about what shortcomings you found. As I stated, I hadn't had much time to play around with roles so it made me wonder what your experience was.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

John Christie
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 10:11:12 pm

I run a facility with 16 edit suites. All of our editors are freelancers familiar with both Avid and FCP. None of the editors I've spoken to are interested in learning FCPX and I don't blame them. We'll be switching to Avid in the next year or two.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:18:03 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't layer tracks as they are fixed. You can only move the contents of the track to another track. You can simply flip flop a1 with a10, or v1 with v5."
Why do you want to move full track if you can move individual clips?
That's flexibility.
In the other hand (moving a full track could be very risky) you can move the whole contents at once, and the results are the same.
To manage more than one clip at a time, layered system uses "precomposed layers" that in the end are Tracks or kind of "Compound clips`" up to FCPX.

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "Your example is like a kind of Downstream Key. Good."

Mmmm kinda but not really? Here's a picture of it for you. Look on the right side of the timeline. That's a visible title under the video. Downstream keys happen after everything else (hence down stream):"
I mean downstream-key, because I guess the titles are set on top of whatever picture is processed below. Well above as FCPX show it.
I guess is like a kind of titles-compound-clip, that you will need to open every time you need to correct something. It may be OK to have the titles apart when your editing begin making the titles.
i make them in the end, when everything else is ready.
Normally is one of the things (with the subtitles) that requires a few corrections.
(at least for my self, with my poor English :-)


[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "FCPX just order things sequentially. Time is a result.
In FCP time is absolute. You set timing and duration by mean of editing, not with old fashioned slugs. "

The gaps (or old fashioned slugs, you call them) represent no difference than an empty space in FCP7. Except they have more purpose and you can easily set how long they are. They are trimmable, and allow clip connections. They are way more controllable than empty space on a timeline. Yes, they are required in the primary, but they make sense in X's timeline and offer very simple control."

Jeremy, when you know from before starting your editing, the duration, and where they have to go certain elements, why to process that way?.
Again, all this is an step back.
Is worst than in the Betacam times, when, on stripped tapes, we made back-ward edits.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 3:48:27 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Why do you want to move full track if you can move individual clips?"

I was commenting from your post a few posts back about tracks as layers. You said tracks were layers, I said they weren't (in FCP anyway).

And your question answers exactly how FCPX works.

[Rafael Amador] "Jeremy, when you know from before starting your editing, the duration, and where they have to go certain elements, why to process that way?"

I don't think you need to now how long a gap needs to be. Gaps are very useful, although some see it as not so much. By the way, you said that you were going to Avid? Check this out, Avid has a gap system as well: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17575

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:20:16 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't think you need to now how long a gap needs to be. Gaps are very useful, although some see it as not so much. By the way, you said that you were going to Avid? Check this out, Avid has a gap system as well: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17575"
That's interesting, however, for my self, if is the application who sets the gap or is my who leave the space, is the same.
For me is basic to have a from the beginning an spatial view of every element, the position in time and the size (duration).
Jeremy, for my self, the gaps are as meaningful as the stuff already lied in the sequence/project.
The "White holes" is where there is the work to do. Once they are filled, I have my story-line. Then I start the finishing (B-roll, etc). there are no more story-lines going on.
Sorry I do not accept the "Secondary Story-line" concept. That's an Apple invention.
An ITW where you use few B-rool shoots to cover the cuts, to call that "Secondary Story-line" is simply pretentious.
However that makes sense for example for a weekly TV program with a fix structure ; where the real stories (the contents of the program) are the "Secondaries"
Then is OK. You work your Secondaries compound them, and connect them to a Primary Story-line that is ready because doesn't changes from program to program. Few adjustments and you may have everything ensemble in minutes.
That would be great. That's really a time-saver and would eliminate repetitive tasks.
Happily I ran away
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:28:55 pm

[Rafael Amador] "For me is basic to have a from the beginning an spatial view of every element, the position in time and the size (duration).
Jeremy, for my self, the gaps are as meaningful as the stuff already lied in the sequence/project.
The "White holes" is where there is the work to do. Once they are filled, I have my story-line."


And gaps do not hinder this workflow in the least bit. As a matter of fact, I would argue they are more flexible.

[Rafael Amador] "Sorry I do not accept the "Secondary Story-line" concept. That's an Apple invention.
An ITW where you use few B-rool shoots to cover the cuts, to call that "Secondary Story-line" is simply pretentious. "


You do not have to have a secondary storyline to add a cut away.

[Rafael Amador] "However that makes sense for example for a weekly TV program with a fix structure ; where the real stories (the contents of the program) are the "Secondaries"
Then is OK. You work your Secondaries compound them, and connect them to a Primary Story-line that is ready because doesn't changes from program to program. Few adjustments and you may have everything ensemble in minutes."


I guess that's a potential use, sure, but definitely not the only use. Auditions will be a powerful use for versioning. One timeline is now as many as you need it to be.

[Rafael Amador] "Happily I ran away "

Good luck to you, Rafa. I hope you find the proverbial FCP8. I am going to stick around here for a while and see what happens.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Jeremy 2
on Oct 15, 2011 at 5:11:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "Happily I ran away "

Good luck to you, Rafa. I hope you find the proverbial FCP8. I am going to stick around here for a while and see what happen"

I wasn't meaning running away of FCPX (here I am trying to deal with him), but run away from working in a TV station ;-)
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Neil Patience
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:28:36 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "By the way, you said that you were going to Avid? Check this out, Avid has a gap system as well:
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17575

The link above relates to to a Simon Ubsdell post that says:
"Consider this from the Media Composer manual:
When you use the Lift/Overwrite tool, the application adds filler to the sequence to maintain sync."

While this does suggest that slug, or filler to use the Avid term, is added to maintian sync actually nothing physical appears in the Avid timeline at all. An empty gap is created containing "nothing".

Indeed Avid offers 2 options here - "lift" which acts as above and "extract" which moves everything up closing the gap like FCPX

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:34:07 pm

[Neil Patience] "While this does suggest that slug, or filler to use the Avid term, is added to maintian sync actually nothing physical appears in the Avid timeline at all. An empty gap is created containing "nothing".

Indeed Avid offers 2 options here - "lift" which acts as above and "extract" which moves everything up closing the gap like FCPX"


But later in the thread, it's mentioned that it's trimmable and works like a gap. If there was an option to make FCPX gaps invisible instead of looking like an empty clip, isn't it the same? See here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17580

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17577

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:41:49 pm

Avid's filler is essentially a 100% transparent Gap clip, if you want to call it that. That's why, when you select clips in Avid that are separated by filler you have to select the filler between them as well to move them up and down a track. It maintains sync, but the filler is the same color as the track so it appears as a blank space.

That said, Avid's "gap clips", aka filler, are very elegantly handled. You can add effects to them and they work like adjustment layers. You can trim them to shorten or lengthen them. You can select them and move them up or down or right or left and they will overwrite other clips in overwrite segment mode or push clips if you're using insert segment mode.

If you use Mark Clip on a section of filler and extract it, Avid will remove the filler and close the gap but only on the selected tracks - it's not an "entire timeline ripples". This is both good and bad in that it makes it a little more complicated to move the entire track, but it also gives 100% control to the user, and the behavior is consistent across all modes. Filler is a transparent clip and acts as such. It's rather brilliant, really.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:48:08 pm

[Neil Patience] "While this does suggest that slug, or filler to use the Avid term, is added to maintian sync actually nothing physical appears in the Avid timeline at all. An empty gap is created containing "nothing"."

This is not entirely true.

You can actually pick up the "gap" clips in the AVID timeline using the segment tool and move them around, even overwriting or rippling other clips as you do so.

So I would say that conceptually it is identical to what is happening in FCPX, although marginally less obvious.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:54:47 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "So I would say that conceptually it is identical to what is happening in FCPX, although marginally less obvious."

Not really, though. In Avid, you can select the gap and move it, but it's treated as though it's a clip so new filler is left in its place. The edit system makes no assumptions that you want to close that gap just because you selected and moved the filler that was there. If you want to close the gap, you select and delete or mark the filler and extract it.

FCPX, on the other hand, looks to close the gap when you move the gap clip - it's assuming that's what you want to do. In David Lawrence's case, that's not what he wanted so the software was wrong and now he has to fix it. If the gap clips were treated consistently with regular clips it would simply replace the gap clip you're moving with another gap clip. In my opinion, Apple got this behavior wrong.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 5:57:57 pm

[Michael Hancock] "FCPX, on the other hand, looks to close the gap when you move the gap clip - it's assuming that's what you want to do. In David Lawrence's case, that's not what he wanted so the software was wrong and now he has to fix it. If the gap clips were treated consistently with regular clips it would simply replace the gap clip you're moving with another gap clip. In my opinion, Apple got this behavior wrong."

As has been mentioned in the other thread, you hold option and a gap remains, essentially copying that gap, so it's already been fixed! If you want to remove the gap, you select and delete, or use the selection tool instead of the position tool to move it.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:11:04 pm

I guess that's a fix, but the program is still treating gaps differently than clips in this instance, but the same in other instances. It's inconsistent and is still making an assumption about your intent. If the default was to replace a gap with another gap but a modifier modified that behavior it would be more logical, wouldn't it?

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:35:37 pm

[Michael Hancock] "I guess that's a fix, but the program is still treating gaps differently than clips in this instance, but the same in other instances. It's inconsistent and is still making an assumption about your intent. "

Yeah, but this is with the position tool, which is a tool of intent. It preforms differently than all the other tools as it shuts rippling off. It says, "I want to move this video clip here, and leave a gap, and not ripple the timeline. If I have a gap, I assume that you want to ripple the timeline as why would you leave a gap with a gap when you can clearly just create another gap, or hit a for the selection tool".

I hope Boris the Yonder Yak adds that to his FCPX.2 repertoire. Save Boris the Wonder Yak!


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yeah, but this is with the position tool, which is a tool of intent. I"

Right. Compare that to Media Composer, which has a similar setup (minus the rippling timeline). Segment mode are your tools of intent. You can overwrite mode, which means the clips you move around overwrite what you place them on, or insert mode - the clips ripple when you drop them. But the difference is that filler and clips are treated consistently with either mode, or tool of intent.



[Jeremy Garchow] "It says, "I want to move this video clip here, and leave a gap, and not ripple the timeline. If I have a gap, I assume that you want to ripple the timeline as why would you leave a gap with a gap when you can clearly just create another gap, or hit a for the selection tool". "

The way I see it, the position tool does not have consistent behavior - it's behavior tied to the asset you're moving, and that's illogical. You already have a way to remove a gap - select and delete. The position tool should treat the gap the same as a clip - you want to move video, replace with gap. You move a gap, replace with gap. It's the same for everything and simplifies the tool. If you want to remove the gap, the position tool would be the wrong tool - you would select and delete it. The way it stands now, the interface is not predictable.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:48:10 pm

[Michael Hancock] "The way I see it, the position tool does not have consistent behavior - it's behavior tied to the asset you're moving, and that's illogical. You already have a way to remove a gap - select and delete. The position tool should treat the gap the same as a clip - you want to move video, replace with gap. You move a gap, replace with gap. It's the same for everything and simplifies the tool. If you want to remove the gap, the position tool would be the wrong tool - you would select and delete it. The way it stands now, the interface is not predictable."

I hear you. But it does work. As I mentioned in the other thread, this should be fixed by Apple to protect people from themselves. That is fine, just look at how clip collisions work in FCP7, they are just protecting people from perhaps screwing up. But in this case with X, it make sense as the position tool is a gap tool, but I am a total weirdo around here.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:51:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That is fine, just look at how clip collisions work in FCP7, they are just protecting people from perhaps screwing up. But in this case with X, it make sense as the position tool is a gap tool, but I am a total weirdo around here."

Actually, I might be the weirdo - I despise and detest and loathe the clip collision stuff in FCP7. I abhor it. I don't need to be protected from myself - I am an editor, I make my money doing this. I know clips will collide and I'm ok with it - it is my intent and the software prevents me from doing what I want without locking a bazillion tracks.

It's my #1 complaint about FCP, and I was really, really hoping to see it fixed with FCPX. Oh well.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:54:17 pm

I hear you about clip collisions. It's really annoying.

[Michael Hancock] "It's my #1 complaint about FCP, and I was really, really hoping to see it fixed with FCPX. Oh well."

Well wait. Time out for a sec.

Isn't that what the magnetic timeline does?


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:59:24 pm

Yes and no. There are no clip collisions, but it's just moving stuff up and down to get it out of the way. I don't want stuff to move out of the way. When I have a collision, I want the clip I'm moving to overwrite the clip it's colliding with. If I don't want it to I'll move stuff myself to keep it from happening.

Is there a modifier that keeps things in place and overwrites them when you shuffle stuff around?

Also, I don't like the rippling timeline. I really, really like things static and only moving when I'm making very conscious decisions to move them. Like I said, I may be weird when it comes to this stuff.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:04:32 pm

[Michael Hancock] "Is there a modifier that keeps things in place and overwrites them when you shuffle stuff around?"

Yeah, in the primary storyline, it's the position tool. It overwrites whatever's in the primary (but that does not account for connected clips, which simply get out of the way. Still better than not letting me do it at all).

[Michael Hancock] "Also, I don't like the rippling timeline. I really, really like things static and only moving when I'm making very conscious decisions to move them. Like I said, I may be weird when it comes to this stuff."

Nope, not at all. It's what most people are complaining about I think. It all boils down to that simple notion.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:13:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "but that does not account for connected clips, which simply get out of the way. Still better than not letting me do it at all)."

I agree it's still better than preventing you from doing it. At least you can make the moves you want then adjust everything else, but I still prefer that the default is that it overwrites with a modifier key to move stuff out of the way when you want it to do that. Basically, I want everything to be an option and a modifier key away!


[Jeremy Garchow] "It's what most people are complaining about I think. It all boils down to that simple notion."

That and lack of tracks. And if that's what ultimately keeps people away, is it possible for Apple to change it or are they too far down the rabbit hole?

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:53:07 pm

[Michael Hancock] "is it possible for Apple to change it or are they too far down the rabbit hole?"

I'm sure they could if they wanted to. I'm not sure they want to, at this point.

If Roles get fleshed out and super easy to use, you really won't need tracks. I have heard many comments from people actually using the software, they think editing is faster than FCP of yore. There is also the other side of that.

I was playing around with naming Roles/Subroles today. Naming a Role called "Audio Tracks" and then Subroles named "Tr01 - Dialogue" for track 1 and so on.

It was kind of interesting, also limiting (not very adjustable as you can't edit roles, so the numbering system can break really easily). This is not a way to do things, but it was fun to mess around. It did make exporting pretty easy though. Pics here:





You can even stack subroles if that's handy for you:



Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:53:38 pm

[Michael Hancock] "Segment mode are your tools of intent. You can overwrite mode, which means the clips you move around overwrite what you place them on, or insert mode - the clips ripple when you drop them. But the difference is that filler and clips are treated consistently with either mode, or tool of intent."

I hate to disagree but ... if Media Composer were consistent in its logic you would be able to select a gap/filler with the yellow (Extract/Splice) segment tool and deleting would ripple the timeline. It doesn't.

I'm not saying it should, though on reflection that could be quite handy, I'm just saying that nothing is as perfectly consistent as it seems.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:57:04 pm

Never tried it (I prefer Mark Clip/Extract). If it doesn't work then Avid needs to fix that too, then. That is illogical.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Neil Patience
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 12, 2011 at 11:21:55 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "I hate to disagree but ... if Media Composer were consistent in its logic you would be able to select a gap/filler with the yellow (Extract/Splice) segment tool and deleting would ripple the timeline. It doesn't."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here but if you select a gap in the timeline using sement mode with the yellow extract/splice tool and delete it the timeline does ripple down.
Obviously if there are other tracks that cross the extracted section they will be affected too so you may have to do some repair.

When you have tried it does it stay in place or what happens ? Perhaps we are talking about different things ?

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

Neil Patience
Re: FCPX or Not?
on Oct 12, 2011 at 11:31:04 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Neil Patience] "While this does suggest that slug, or filler to use the Avid term, is added to maintian sync actually nothing physical appears in the Avid timeline at all. An empty gap is created containing "nothing"."

This is not entirely true."


You are right, my description of "nothing" was a little inaccurate but that is why I put it in quotes.
I was trying to distinguish it from filler or slug.
You can indeed trim the "nothing" and move it about - I find it a very flexible way of working although as you point out in another post it does get tricky when there are lots of overlapping tracks and you end up needing to do a bit of fixing.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]