FORUMS: list search recent posts

And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
TImothy Auld
And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 2:33:55 pm

I really, really don't understand how multicam would work in a magnetic timeline environment. Yes, if you just using it as a switcher to cut on the fly from one camera to another I can see it, but that is really just the beginning of the process for most multicam work.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 2:43:01 pm

It is my curiosity too. I would think there has to be some sort of UI update in at least a source/record window to make it viable. As far as the magnetism, all the angles would (I think) be akin to a compound clip.

I'm not a multicam expert, but it's kind of like multiclips in fcp7 now.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 2:57:02 pm

I'm imagining they might take something akin to the "syncronize audio" function but apply it globally to a group of clips - then create a "' visual representaton" of clip switching that you'd use to make your "take" selections on the fly, and when you're happy, you'd collapse the result to a "connected multiclip" of some sort.

That would actually be a lot like Multicam in FCP Legacy, but without all the extra steps of pre-designating "angles" for each clip in advance.

And would preserve the "magnetic" nature of things since the resulting "switched clip" could then be cut and edited just like any other connected clip.

But right now only Randy, Brian and the larger FCP-X team know for sure.

One good thing is that we know FCP-X will have multicam soon. They wouldn't have "pre-announced" it if it wasn't well underway.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 3:20:48 pm

As I said, I can see it working as a switcher for on the fly cutting from one camera to another but as I also said that is just the very beginning of most multicam workflows, not the end. Also I do not have to pre-designate angles. In a properly organized world that is done in production.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 3:21:31 pm

[TImothy Auld] "s I said, I can see it working as a switcher for on the fly cutting from one camera to another but as I also said that is just the very beginning of most multicam workflows, not the end. Also I do not have to pre-designate angles. In a properly organized world that is done in production."

OK. So what can't you see?


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 3:34:46 pm

In the present magnetic timeline configuration I do not understand how I can have say six angles all with different audio (as in coming from different mics) and designate one of those angles to supply the audio for all of those angles. Until it becomes necessary to use one of the other audio angles on a given clip or clips. Or how, if audio and video are connected to one another, I would grab a sound effect from a completely different multiclip that is forty-five minutes down the timeline and move it back those forty-five minutes for use with another multiclip. Or how I would use the video only from one multiclip over the audio only of another unrelated multiclip. That kind of scratches the surface. As I said, maybe I don't fully understand.

bigpine


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 3:50:33 pm

FCP-X is constructed around a relational database that's purpose driven to locate, extract, manipulate and display digital data related to video editing in a very flexible fashion.

So to enable EVERYTHING you're asking for is simply a matter of code calls and interface construction choices.

That's doesn't say anything about if, or when, or especially HOW the software designers will implement the specific ways they arrange the access to and display of that data. Personally I "hope" they do something radical with it, because I LIKE the fact that they were willing to tear down the walls to construct an alternative to the way things have "traditonally" been done - but that's just me!

Still, the whole point of the re-write of FCP-X was to make raw data accessibility and manipulation easier at the most fundamental level of the program. So that should bode well for future capabilities - including multi-cam.

We'll know soon enough.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 4:02:41 pm

[Bill Davis] "simply a matter of code calls and interface construction choices" (?!)

Sorry Bill but that is elevated, completely aside from the point, and does not even begin to address the issue I have raised except in the "they're working on it" way.


[Bill Davis] "So to enable EVERYTHING you're asking for"

You are seeming to indicate here that my needs are unreasonable. As I said those examples only scratch the surface.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 4:42:34 pm

[Bill Davis] "FCP-X is constructed around a relational database that's purpose driven to locate, extract, manipulate and display digital data related to video editing in a very flexible fashion."

I think this is true of the event browser, and its importance should not be overlooked.

However, I think the structure of FCPXML suggests that this is not true of the timeline. Objects on the timeline have hierarchical parent/child relationships, which accounts for both FCPX's relative time and clip connections.

I think the issue for handling multicam is similar to issue for handling a music video: you have to lay down a spine first that the other clips can relate to, because many editorial operations in this context will make more sense in absolute time than in relative time.

I think that FCPX will have to make some UI changes to accommodate multicam, but I doubt they'll change the toolset much, and I doubt they'd change the data model at all. I imagine multicam will revolve around compound clips and the position tool.

Timothy, how do you use FCP7's multicam to work now, and what tools are you concerned will be missing in FCPX?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 4:58:43 pm

It's not a question of tools. In many instances I need to have audio and video completely unconnected and to be able to manipulate them in the timeline at will in any way I choose. I don't see how that happens in the present magnetic timeline in a multicam situation. They are many times I do not want -no, can't have - a clip to relate to another clip in any way.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 5:14:21 pm

[TImothy Auld] "They are many times I do not want -no, can't have - a clip to relate to another clip in any way."

Put it in the primary. Connect what you need to a gap is another way. Yes, it's different than FCP7.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:15:32 pm

We were talking about multicam here and even if I put it in the primary the audio and the video are still linked, are they not?

bigpine


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:51:59 pm

[TImothy Auld] "We were talking about multicam here and even if I put it in the primary the audio and the video are still linked, are they not?"

Don't have to be. I thought you said there was one main audio track, then you needed to borrow from other as needed.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:25:12 pm

[TImothy Auld] "We were talking about multicam here and even if I put it in the primary the audio and the video are still linked, are they not?"

OK. Let me put it this way, you know how mutliclips works in FCP7 now, right?

Why can't this be done in FCPX? Instead of a multi-clip, it's called a compound clip (or maybe it will still be multiclip). You can choose whether or not to switch the audio when you switch the video, or you can choose a "full time" audio track in the inspector, just like you choose an audio clip now in the inspector? You of course, would need a second viewer our source/record (hopefully, if not, multicam is over).

If you need something from 45 minutes down the timeline, you match back to that angle to the Browser, then add it wherever you need it 45 minutes perviously in the timeline.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:38:40 pm

In theory that could work but I have questions about it that I don't have time to articulate now. TBC...

bigpine


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 8:14:28 pm

Multi-Cam essentials

1) The ability to create a multi-clip with a minimum of 25 angles, no limit would be better.

Automating the creation of the clip would be a plus, this is where FCPX should shine. Allowing the individual angles to contain non continuous clips, something Legacy can't do, would be a big plus.

2) The clips need to be able to sync to either timecode or some sort of marker.

3) The multi-clip needs to behave like any other clip in that you can load it in a viewer (browser), match back to it from the timeline; it should behave in a timeline like any other clip in terms of trimming, moving, j-cuts etc.(many multi-cam setups use a special layered timeline that can be edited or use markers to indicate cut points: these are all way to limited.)

4) The multi-clip needs to be able to assign whatever combination of video angle and audio channels you want to lay down on the timeline quickly and easily, and change it whenever desired.

5) You need to be able to change video angles and edit to the timeline "on the fly" as your viewing - the "live cut" simulation mode.

6) Once cut into the timeline you need to be able to change angles or video or audio or both, trim cut points, enter new cut points with a change of angle - all with a single keystroke. Similar to the on the fly mode, only this time using the timeline as your source.

7) On the timeline you need to be able to know when video and audio are in sync even when they are not from the same original source - audio 1 from camera A with video from camera B - as long as they are from the same multi-clip. If they are not in sync, you need to be able to slip back into sync with single keystroke, and need to be able to do this with either audio or video.

8) Need to be able to see an updating in-sync multi-clip whenever you play the timeline.


I think this covers it, if not somebody else should chime in.

Legacy can do this, Avid can do this. X has a chance to do this better than any other because, due to it's relational database nature, it can create multi-clips that are both automated and non-continuous.

I'm most interested to see how it handles the need for a constant source viewer, audio independent of video, and showing sync relationships while letting the editor determine when to re-sync.

If Apple tries to make a "multi-cam for everyone" type of feature, it will suck for editors like me. If they try to make the best multi-cam editor on the market, they just might.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 8:18:01 pm

I was hoping you chimed in as I know this is something you have been waiting for, Herb.

That list, seems extremely doable in FCPX. The framework seems to be already there.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 8:22:34 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That list, seems extremely doable in FCPX. The framework seems to be already there."

And because of that, if they don't do it, if they come up with some 4 camera sync to audio waveform crap, it will tell me everything I need to know about their market strategy.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 8:33:26 pm

[Herb Sevush] "And because of that, if they don't do it, if they come up with some 4 camera sync to audio waveform crap, it will tell me everything I need to know about their market strategy."

I totally agree. The next release will be a big message as to what's going on. Video out and multicam, screw those up and it's pretty much game over at that point.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 11:00:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Multi-Cam essentials

1) The ability to create a multi-clip with a minimum of 25 angles, no limit would be better. "



Wow.

I'm gonna argue directly against this idea. I don't want to turn my laptop into your idea of a multi-cam monster. At ALL.

To me, 25 angles is at LEAST 17 too many. - at least until Thunderbolt fully implements the all optical roadmap.

Anyway, I personally I don't want the dev team to spend a minute coding in stuff that only a tiny fraction of the users will ever really need.

Maybe at some distant future point, we'll have some kind of UBER-WiFi that lets some kid sit at their laptop and grab 25 plus real-time feeds from the cel phones surrounding a BMX race, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

Again, it's clear that while FCP-X will grow and evolve and nobody knows how far - if they wanted to write something that does what OLD FCP used to do - only more and better - they were perfectly capable of doing precisely that. They'd already done it. (Multiple times' in Randy's case!)

Herb, this will NEVER be the monolithic "everything for everyone" software you are so clearly still pining for.

They are on a different path. You might as well be asking them to code in all the capabilities of a GV Keyenne as well, but NEITHER of those things are likely to happen. Period.

It's starting to sound like I'm listening to a parent for whom it doesn't matter how decent and accomplished the kid the daughter brings home might be - that kid will never, ever, EVER be "good enough."

Just sayin'

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 11:16:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "To me, 25 angles is at LEAST 17 too many"

When I say a minimum of 25 cameras, it means you can do up to 25 cameras if you want to. You can also do only 2, 3 or 4. Right now Legacy can handle 16 cameras, which is OK but there are a lot of live concerts shot with up to 20 - 25 cameras. It's up to the editor to define how many angles he wants to work with.

Most NLE's right now can handle at least 8 angles, PPro is very disappointing in that currently it can handle only 4, but there are strong rumors that that's about to change.

[Bill Davis] "Herb, this will NEVER be the monolithic "everything for everyone" software you are so clearly still pining for."

Bill, what I outlined is not outrageous - Legacy can do it now (albeit 16 cameras instead of 25). If FCPX doesn't want my business that's fine, but Apple claims otherwise. What I laid out are the requirements for a serious multi-cam editor. It's up to Apple to determine how serious they want to be. Like any old dog, I simply go where I am wanted.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

nothin' attached to nothin'


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 1:55:22 pm

After looking at your post again I realized I had a few more things to say.

Currently Legacy handles 16 angles with live updates and up to 124 angles in all, with only the first 16 being updated live in the viewer. There is no difference coding for 16 than for 25 live angles, it's just a matter of how much bandwidth your system can handle. With modern drive arrays and Thunderbolt connections 25 proxy angles should be possible. You just show your ignorance of multi-cam workflows when you get so flustered.

[Bill Davis] " I don't want to turn my laptop into your idea of a multi-cam monster. At ALL."

#1 - nobodies asking you to do anything with your laptop,
#2 - as for your wants, last I looked you weren't a member of the design team. At ALL.

[Bill Davis] "Maybe at some distant future point, we'll have some kind of UBER-WiFi that lets some kid sit at their laptop and grab 25 plus real-time feeds from the cel phones surrounding a BMX race, but I'm not holding my breath for that."

That distant point is now. For a "futurist" like yourself I'm surprised you don't understand that. And it's not a BMX race, it's more likely a protest at Zucoti park and the kid is downloading clips from YouTube and syncing them by audio.

[Bill Davis] "Anyway, I personally I don't want the dev team to spend a minute coding in stuff that only a tiny fraction of the users will ever really need."

[Bill Davis] "It's starting to sound like I'm listening to a parent for whom it doesn't matter how decent and accomplished the kid the daughter brings home might be - that kid will never, ever, EVER be "good enough.""

And your starting to sound like someone who thinks X was designed expressly for him. It wasn't, it isn't.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

nothin' attached to nothin'


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:16:56 pm

Also that is what I would call a workaround and we all know the root of that word.

bigpine


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:25:52 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Also that is what I would call a workaround and we all know the root of that word.
"


Please, don't leave me to ponder this one all day Timothy. Explain the root part for me please.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:44:14 pm

It is, of course, "around" as in "I am going around in circles here."

bigpine


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:46:02 pm

[TImothy Auld] "It is, of course, "around" as in "I am going around in circles here.""

Agreed! It's quite dizzying around here.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 5:04:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "FCP-X is constructed around a relational database that's purpose driven to locate, extract, manipulate and display digital data related to video editing in a very flexible fashion.

So to enable EVERYTHING you're asking for is simply a matter of code calls and interface construction choices."


I agree that the relational database nature of FCPX makes it ideal for developing a world class multi-cam editor. That is why I am sticking around, waiting to see what they come up with. But there is nothing "simple" about it, as the devil, as always, is in the details. And the single viewer nature of X, along with it's inability to display source timecode in the timeline are both design hurdles to overcome. Seeing how or whether they choose to overcome them will tell me a lot about Apple's future intentions for X.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 4:34:36 pm

[TImothy Auld] " As I said, maybe I don't fully understand."

Well, since the drop down menus and multicam aren't enabled yet, we can only guess.

Have you played with "Auditions" yet? Or compound/synchronized clips? Have you played with their interfaces in the timeline?


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 4:47:37 pm

Yes, I've played around extensively with those and many other features of X. Which is why I cannot wrap my mind around multicam working in any viable way with an inflexible, undisableable (that may the first instance of that particular word in the English language) magnetic timeline.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:29:54 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Which is why I cannot wrap my mind around multicam working in any viable way with an inflexible, undisableable (that may the first instance of that particular word in the English language) magnetic timeline."

First of all, it's not the magnetic timeline that is the root of your issue. The fact that the timeline defaults to keeping clips together has nothing to do with what you've stated as your issues. What does seem to be the problem, is the way that FCPX embeds audio with video clips when captured or injested.

[TImothy Auld] "I do not understand how I can have say six angles all with different audio (as in coming from different mics) and designate one of those angles to supply the audio for all of those angles. Until it becomes necessary to use one of the other audio angles on a given clip or clips."

If I were to speculate for a moment:

Imagine a multiclip as similar to a compound clip in which all the video angles are layered atop one another, and all the audio is as well. Then perhaps the audio for each angle takes on a Role as the audio for that angle. Which then via shortcut or menu item can be swapped and traded between video angles.

[TImothy Auld] "Or how, if audio and video are connected to one another, I would grab a sound effect from a completely different multiclip that is forty-five minutes down the timeline and move it back those forty-five minutes for use with another multiclip."

This can be done already by simply selecting the area where the sound is and inserting the audio only (OPT+3) in the timeline. If the audio in a multiclip is defined by roles or by angle, I don't see it as too difficult to choose which audio you want.

[TImothy Auld] "Or how I would use the video only from one multiclip over the audio only of another unrelated multiclip."

Again, this can be done with the video only, audio only selections. However, I agree that it is imperative that each angle's audio be discretely available in the multiclip.

Your difficulty in seeing how this works with FCPX's paradigm isn't unique. You've probably hit upon the reason that multicam wasn't an initial feature in FCPX's release.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:41:43 pm

OK. I have allowed you to speculate including your speculation that all problems stem from my difficulty in seeing how this would work and not any problem inherent in the present system.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 6:56:48 pm

[TImothy Auld] "OK. I have allowed you to speculate including your speculation that all problems stem from my difficulty in seeing how this would work and not any problem inherent in the present system."

That wasn't speculation. You yourself said that perhaps you don't understand. That wasn't me.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:13:44 pm

Again, of course, it is not you at all but me. My apologies.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:17:50 pm

If the shoe fits...

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:23:07 pm

Precisely the sort of gracious response I expected.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:38:08 pm

You know. I was perfectly polite and respectful in trying to respond to your initial post. I mistakenly thought that you were entertaining a speculative discussion on how multicam might work in FCPX with what is known about it's current paradigm. What I received from you in return was altogether rude, presumptuous and snarky.

But you're right, I do apologize for my last post. I fired it off quickly, and was unable to change or edit it afterward. But let's not pretend that you have some moral high-ground in this matter.

I will leave you to your FCPX-bashing. I tire quickly from these types of threads.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 7:41:54 pm

Once again, quite gracious.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12:37 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Yes, I've played around extensively with those and many other features of X. Which is why I cannot wrap my mind around multicam working in any viable way with an inflexible, undisableable (that may the first instance of that particular word in the English language) magnetic timeline."

Cool.

Have you seen what happens when you "detach audio"? And have you messed around in a secondary storyline at all?

And have you used the match frame capability and then the audio and video only edits method?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:00:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Have you seen what happens when you "detach audio"?"

No way to tell if you've lost sync? Sorry, I couldn't resist ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02:55 pm

[David Lawrence] "No way to tell if you've lost sync? Sorry, I couldn't resist ;)
"


Yep you're right.

I think Timothy needs to have certain things way of of sync. He says nothing connected to anything.

I'd also love a reattach audio.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:08:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'd also love a reattach audio."

Totally! I mean, what's up with that? Seems so obvious. Makes me wonder what's in the water in Cupertino.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 11:07:33 pm

Why can't you just select the original clip, clone it with "new compound clip" - detach the audio from that and if you need to "re-attach it" just replace the un-synced one with the original?

Haven't tried it, but it seems pretty trivial to me.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 12:59:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "Why can't you just select the original clip, clone it with "new compound clip" - detach the audio from that and if you need to "re-attach it" just replace the un-synced one with the original?"

The nice thing about detach audio is that it allows you to keep any audio adjustments already made (as opposed to break apart items). It also allows you to assign multiple roles to individual audio tracks, which will probably be pretty crucial to multicam, and other workflows. A reattach audio would, theoretically, then allow you to reattach any new adjustments and roles back to the video leaving anything in place. As far as I can tell, a compound clip can't have these separate roles, and if you replace the audio, you would lose the roles and the audio adjustments, unless you preassigned the roles in the browser.

Like with a lot of things in FCPX the foundation seems to be there, we just need more control of it.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:07:57 pm

Is that what I need? Really Jeremy?

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:12:05 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Is that what I need? Really Jeremy?"

Yo man, relax. Trying to help you out here. Look at what you said:

[TImothy Auld] "They are many times I do not want -no, can't have - a clip to relate to another clip in any way."

Nevermind, Timothy. I thought you were looking for help. Commence the FCPX bashing.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:14:47 pm

And that somehow justifies your making a personal comment about me? Sorry. No. That's not just trying to help.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15:55 pm

[TImothy Auld] "And that somehow justifies your making a personal comment about me? Sorry. No. That's not just trying to help."

Timothy. I did not make a personal comment about you.

Man, I think I need a break. This is getting out of control.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:26:33 pm

Tim, I think Jeremy was simply referring to this:

[TImothy Auld] "It's not a question of tools. In many instances I need to have audio and video completely unconnected and to be able to manipulate them in the timeline at will in any way I choose. I don't see how that happens in the present magnetic timeline in a multicam situation. "

I was being snarky but basically agreeing with you. I often slip sync and create entirely new relationships on the fly. The magnetic timeline doesn't help. And at least in FCP7, when you slip audio, there are indicators to let you know.

Nothing personal, we're all friends here :)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:35:16 pm

In understood exactly what you were saying David, and I did not take that personally in any way. But thanks.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 12:52:58 pm

[TImothy Auld] "In understood exactly what you were saying David, and I did not take that personally in any way. But thanks.

bigpine"


David said what I meant, Timothy. I was not attacking or vilifying you, I was seriously trying to help you out.

I am sorry if I offended you in some way, it was not my intention.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 1:27:35 pm

Thanks.

bigpine


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:22:07 pm

So what's this?

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think Timothy needs to have certain things way of of sync"

bigpine


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:26:09 pm

I don't know about Tim but i definitely need the ability to have nothin' attached to nothin' but with the ability to reattach at will.

I mentioned this months ago in one of the earlier go 'rounds that one of the first things I do after making an assembly is to de-link everything.

I want to treat my audio like it's mag track on a moviola - sync code when I need it, but otherwise total freedom to move it around completely disconnected with the video. I never use J and L cuts because I never need them - free Audio, free from the tyranny of video, free at last, free at last, thank the big editor in the sky I'm free at ... I think you get the idea.

When editing multi-cam this becomes a natural way of working.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 18, 2011 at 10:34:11 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't know about Tim but i definitely need the ability to have nothin' attached to nothin' but with the ability to reattach at will.
"


Me three.

[Herb Sevush] "I want to treat my audio like it's mag track on a moviola - sync code when I need it, but otherwise total freedom to move it around completely disconnected with the video."

Yup. And at least every couple of projects, I'm faking someone's dialog over them actually saying something else.


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 9:59:07 am

Hm,

Some thoughts of mine.

A lot of people say that FCPX compared to FCP is database driven. FCP was database driven as well - but used another concept.

Regarding multicam work I do see some problems: The current UI using a single viewer. I also do see some problems with timecode which currently is not supported in a way that you can have either multiple tc tracks or can modify them. You can't sync by timecode all. The 'synchronize by audio' stuff doesn't work for me. I can use it, the audio will be out of sync and I can re-arrange this kind of merged clip by hand. But that's not something I do expect from an all new video editing app.
I don't know how many of you dived into the XML stuff provided by FCP legacy and FCPX. I was one of those who did, sometimes to get workarounds, sometimes to better understand how the app was working (and how the database is organized).
Current FCPXML is pretty poor (also with documentation) - I even would say it's not a version 1 release. Anyway it's there and it's a step forward.
But if I look at the options I get to create multiclips I'm a bit desperate as the XML interface doesn't allow to do any of the legacy options to sync multiple audio and video sources into one clip. You still can go the 'syncronize & secondary route', but that neither elegant nor time saving.
I've to agree that this kind of stuff hasn't been that reliable in FCP legacy - so I created an external app to feed old FCP with reliable multiclips. This option is gone at least for the current release.


So all we can do is to sit and wait for a new release and start the discussion again when it's out.

Andreas

P.S. For those who want to know how our workflow had been for FCP 7
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools/movies/multiSync.mov - sorry it lost the VO

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 1:02:57 pm

[Andreas Kiel] "Current FCPXML is pretty poor (also with documentation) - I even would say it's not a version 1 release. Anyway it's there and it's a step forward."

At this point, would you say FCPXML rather incomplete?

Do you see a chance of it getting any better?

If the underlying language is broken, that's a pretty telling sign.


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 4:43:34 pm

Jeremy,

I would say current XML is pretty incomplete and if I would have the time I would take the same approach done by the foolcut people.

If you look at the XML documentation of FCPXML and remove empty pages, the disclaimers and those pages which link to nothing or just have 1 line of text you end up with 5 pages, while the legacy XML documentation (doing the same things) is above 100 pages. So I think there is a lot of stuff missing with this release.
Quite a good example are subtitles with FCPXML. As soon as you are export a project you are loosing any custom formatting. You could some back if you do have the matching Motion assets. But at this point of time there is no documentation for that. Legacy version of FCP XML allowed to extract the basics (font, size, style and alignment) of a subtitle even if you didn't have the generator installed. Now every kind of subtitles are Motion based and formatting (same as in FCP with Motion based text generators, but at least some stuff came over). With FCPX you can't import an FCPXML when you changed base formatting for subtitles, everything will be reset to some kind of default. Export XML and don't change anything within the XML and import that XML you exported a second ago and you are screwed up. That's poor from my point of view.

You know me long enough to know that I quite often was not happy with the different versions of FCP and the XML handling and did say it loud. At the moment I regret I have to say this new version doesn't look very promising.
Regarding subtitles PPro is more or less as same as bad. Multicam limited to 4 might not be enough for many people - but at least some basic stuff is there.

As said before the only thing we can do is to sit and wait for the next version - but for me I'm not that confident. Big things need to be done.

Regards
Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: And speaking of things I don't fully understand,,,
on Oct 19, 2011 at 6:34:16 pm

[Andreas Kiel] "As said before the only thing we can do is to sit and wait for the next version - but for me I'm not that confident. Big things need to be done."

Thanks for weighing in. Do you think big things CAN be done, or will simply not be done? :)


Return to posts index

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