FORUMS: list search recent posts

Time-lapse, FCPX praise

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 7:51:39 pm

This article focuses on time-lapse and barely mentions FCPX but his sentiments are strong.

http://freytag-film.com/blog/artikel/nightscapes-a-look-into-creating-a-tim...

Seems, he likes editing in 4K in FCPX

FCP X for the final edit --> Use any editor of your choice! I get on with FCP X superb!
. . .
I export my timelapses in 4K, ProRes 4444 and edit them in 4K, so i can step down the resolutions if I need to!

What I then do is load them into FCP X, to give them a color grade and to edit the final movie! FCP X allows me to edit the sequences in full quality 4K and scrub them in Real-Time. I have all the features I need and it makes for smooth editing!




Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 9:12:49 pm

Craig,


He's relying on Quicktime Pro 7 in his workflow before it hits FCPX.

It's too bad he doesn't give more detail - I'd like to know what set-up he's using for playback of 4K ProRes 4444.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 9:53:24 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "He's relying on Quicktime Pro 7 in his workflow"

Another issue Apple has to address assuming QTPro is EOL. While you can still get a 7 Pro license and use it in Lion, Apple has to consider developing another method. That there is not automatic install of 7 in Lion and no 7 Pro license with FCPX, presents one more minor complication. FCPX should have direct import of image sequences.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'd like to know what set-up he's using for playback of 4K ProRes 4444."

There's a shot of someone using either a 15" or 17" 2011 MBP and what might be Glyph PortaGig portable hard drive on location. Obviously not sure if that's what he edited with but I'd think it would be a capable system. There's also an iPad in the shot FWIW.



Return to posts index


Christian Schumacher
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 9:42:21 pm

It's a handy NLE for a photographer, I know two of them who like FCPX a lot, and being on a Mac it's a no-brainer. FCPX really shines in that kind of job, since it seems to be helpful for those cutting not very complex pieces. Now that photography is granted with video production capabilities, the ones on Macs are a perfect target for FCPX, although when they find its limits it can be disappointing, even who isn't well acquainted in video editing.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:00:58 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "when they find its limits it can be disappointing"

When they don't see any limits or such limits are removed with updates, they will be quite happy.

You shouldn't assume they will find the limits or that such limits won't be superseded in the future. If you said "if" not "when" that would be a different story.

The author makes no mention of limits (unless you find Quicktime 7 Pro a limit) and took his project to completion. Apparently he was happy with grading and "real time" response.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:28:54 pm

Motion handles image sequences just fine.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:51:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion handles image sequences just fine."

But that's another roundabout.
It would be nice if FCPX handled them directly.



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:56:29 pm

A friend of mine still prefers to grade and denoise his Milky Way timelapses (shot RAW on a 5Dmk2) in photoshop as a batch and then uses QT 7 Pro to assemble the 4k timeline.

He has AE and Premiere Pro but still prefers Photoshop for the subtle denoising.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 11:00:14 pm

I agree, but motion is better than Qt to make a movie in my opinion.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 11:06:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I agree, but motion is better than Qt to make a movie in my opinion."

How so when all one wants to do is string together an image sequence and spit out a 4K ProRes .mov?
One can do that in Motion but how is it better?



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 11:23:30 pm

Allows for 16 or 32 bit RGB processing as opposed to whatever QT does (guessing 8 bit).

Allows more control over reframing.

Allows you to add any filters/retiming/pregrade.

Basically more control and quality.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 21, 2012 at 11:52:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Allows for 16 or 32 bit RGB processing as opposed to whatever QT does (guessing 8 bit)."

That might be an advantage. I'm not sure what the processing is in QT. Then why not have FCPX handle this if Apple be so willing?

[Jeremy Garchow] "Allows more control over reframing.

Allows you to add any filters/retiming/pregrade.

Basically more control and quality."


But this is what FCPX would do as well. If one goal of FCPX is to make things easier and more intuitive, it seems the simplest thing Apple could do is have direct import into FCPX.



Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 12:00:05 am

No question that handling image sequences in X would be great.

X still seems to be a .mov appliance, though.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Phillip Mortimer
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 3:28:45 am

In my experience QuickTime 7 is much fast than Motion in turning image sequences into a movie. But that was Motion 4, I haven't tried Motion 5. It was the difference between 10 seconds of processing in QuickTime vs 10 minutes in Motion. Or the difference between a minute of processing in QuickTime and an hour of spinning beach ball in Motion, followed by a crash.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 4:47:25 pm

Sure. If speed vs quality is what you need, QT is fine. Motion is simply an alternative, another way.

I use AE for my image seq needs, but that's not part of this conversation, really.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Christian Schumacher
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 1:18:48 am

[Craig Seeman] " When they don't see any limits or such limits are removed with updates,
they will be quite happy."


One of the things was so basic that I'm ashamed to even mention it here.
She was (and so I was) baffled that FCPX can't perform a simple "Find Unused Clips"
But hey, let's wait until that marvelous tagging brain eventually gets that.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 1:36:08 am

[Christian Schumacher] "She was (and so I was) baffled that FCPX can't perform a simple "Find Unused Clips""

An example of a limit that some hope to be included in an update. There's plenty that's not there yet. Unless you think Apple developed it as EOL out of the gate, I think it's reasonable to assume little things like this will get added. I don't think this would hang me on a time-lapse project.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 3:55:05 am

[Christian Schumacher] "One of the things was so basic that I'm ashamed to even mention it here.
She was (and so I was) baffled that FCPX can't perform a simple "Find Unused Clips"
But hey, let's wait until that marvelous tagging brain eventually gets that."



Uh, it "gets it" right now. And much, MUCH better than Legacy ever did.

You open the keyword index that displays a list of every shot in your timeline. Select them all. Temporarily mark them as REJECTED OR FAVORITES (or if you're using those tags for something else apply a BINGO tag or whatever until you can clear one of those)- it's only temporary. Then use "Hide rejected" or Show Favorites to display every single clip NOT used in your timeline. You're exactly where the "show unused clips" convention was in Legacy - but it becomes just STEP ONE in being useful. Now that you've got the "Class" of all unused clips ID'd - you can really have fun.

You can sub-group them (maybe selects, possibles and dump) or apply sub group tags to any or all. When you're happy with your new organization, just go back to the temporary TAG you used, delete your initial temporary REJECTED or FAVORITE tags and you're left with all the subsequent tags in place to help you work better from that point on.

Once again, it's not something that X "can't do" but rather merely one of a thousand things that the database can do rapidly and easily - if you just take the time to actually learn how to use it.

Most flat file NLE databases think of USED or UNUSED as the beginning and end of clip sorting. It's now actually just a trivial "step one" for the X database.

FWIW.

"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


Christian Schumacher
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 2:40:00 pm

[Bill Davis] " Uh, it "gets it" right now. And much, MUCH better than Legacy ever did."

Does this sound "MUCH better" to you? It does not to me...Sorry, Bill.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/6476#6515


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 22, 2012 at 4:35:50 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "Does this sound "MUCH better" to you? It does not to me...Sorry, Bill.
"


Yes.

While it requires more thinking, understanding and intent - it simultaneously provides a gateway to vast amounts of organizational power that would be obscured to the new user if they got stuck just thinking "like all other NLEs - "show rejected" is one of the two or three designer specified commands you're expected to use.

Again, begs the central question of this forum - Is X a new precision tool - or a "dumbed down" version of all the other NLE approaches?

Mark figured out one way to use the database to find "unused clips" - I found a slightly different way that both employ existing capabilities and share some.

Sounds like the mark of a pretty flexible and capable tool 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

Mitch Ives
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 23, 2012 at 6:38:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "Uh, it "gets it" right now. And much, MUCH better than Legacy ever did.

You open the keyword index that displays a list of every shot in your timeline. Select them all. Temporarily mark them as REJECTED OR FAVORITES (or if you're using those tags for something else apply a BINGO tag or whatever until you can clear one of those)- it's only temporary. Then use "Hide rejected" or Show Favorites to display every single clip NOT used in your timeline. You're exactly where the "show unused clips" convention was in Legacy - but it becomes just STEP ONE in being useful. Now that you've got the "Class" of all unused clips ID'd - you can really have fun.

You can sub-group them (maybe selects, possibles and dump) or apply sub group tags to any or all. When you're happy with your new organization, just go back to the temporary TAG you used, delete your initial temporary REJECTED or FAVORITE tags and you're left with all the subsequent tags in place to help you work better from that point on.

Once again, it's not something that X "can't do" but rather merely one of a thousand things that the database can do rapidly and easily - if you just take the time to actually learn how to use it.

Most flat file NLE databases think of USED or UNUSED as the beginning and end of clip sorting. It's now actually just a trivial "step one" for the X database. "



My god Bill, seriously? Look at this multi-step convoluted work-a-round you have described and you're proud of it? In 1998 Incite had a simple one-step command that accomplished this. Apple can do better than your workaround can't they?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 23, 2012 at 6:46:31 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Apple can do better than your workaround can't they?"

iMovie automatically marks the portions of clips as you add them to the timeline.
Imagine that. iMovie features that didn't make it into FCPX.
OMG iMovie is so much more advanced that FCPX, that latter must really be the beginners tool.

My hunch, like so many other things in FCPX, they are NOT ports from iMovie. There are challenges with the database interrelationships. I would bet it's coming soon.



Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 23, 2012 at 6:53:56 pm

[Craig Seeman] "iMovie automatically marks the portions of clips as you add them to the timeline.
Imagine that. iMovie features that didn't make it into FCPX.
OMG iMovie is so much more advanced that FCPX, that latter must really be the beginners tool.

My hunch, like so many other things in FCPX, they are NOT ports from iMovie. There are challenges with the database interrelationships. I would bet it's coming soon."


I hope you're right. I'm trying not to be negative, but every once in awhile I get this nagging Harbinger feeling that tying everything to the database (which provides great functionality) could also hold up features throughout FCPX's development. I'd like to be wrong on this one.

BTW, the same Incite software had a Consolidate function that extracted the used portions of clips and removed all the unused portions, freeing up considerable disk space.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 23, 2012 at 7:31:07 pm

[Mitch Ives] "I hope you're right. I'm trying not to be negative, but every once in awhile I get this nagging Harbinger feeling that tying everything to the database (which provides great functionality) could also hold up features throughout FCPX's development. I'd like to be wrong on this one."

I do think this is the case. I think it has to do with the state of the release from the get go. Apple has to do a lot of database relationship development before certain features are implemented and their impact on the GUI as well. I think this year's going to be a lot of good catchup though. I think the next release will be the big hurdle jump.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Time-lapse, FCPX praise
on Jan 23, 2012 at 8:33:17 pm

Mitch,

I'm not a database pro by any stretch. ..

But this is totally consistent with the development path I've seen with every database I've ever used.

I have about 15 years into Filemaker Pro - (admittedly at a very casual user level) and this is precisely the path that took.

First release was basic plumbing in a "flat file" construct . Eventually, they added "limited" relational capabilities - largely lookup from other content pods. Then, they added more and more features over the years to the point where large swaths of users didn't need any other tool.

Now, 15 years later, "consensus" capabilities have showed up as persistent icons baked into the interface.

Relational database processes where changing one thing effects subsets of linked "other things" is in no way trivial.

I'm happy to wait for "finished" rather than live through "fast but broken."

But I'm NOT willing to wait to learn the software approach just so it's "perfect.'

I'm had so much re-learning and re-understanding to do approaching X that I'm delighted that they chose to push it out the door at NAB.

This way, I'm not waiting to learn and use the tool (as I'm doing very successfully now with my paid work) until they can perfect the things that would be nice, but aren't necessary.

I'm now 8 paid gigs into it - with three additional new ones on the books - and those jobs happen to all be larger and more complex than the early ones.

That's the context where "show unused clips" is so trivial to me as to be inconsequential.

FCP-X is WAY more than earning it's keep in my practice just the way it is right now.

And that's really all the matters 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

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