FORUMS: list search recent posts

How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Roth Weiss
How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06:25 am

If Randy Ubillos and his team at Apple suddenly had a change of heart, and they added both audio tracks and the FCP viewer to FCPX, how many of you would be pissed-off, how many would be pleased?

Please pick one of the answers below:

a) I'd be pissed

b) I'd be pleased

c) I'd rather not say

If you'd like to explain your answer, please do. Next Friday I'll tally everyone's responses and we'll see what the consensus is.


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:56:23 am

I wouldn't be pissed or pleased about the audio tracks, but I've gotten used to the magnetic timeline, and I don't mind it. I don't think it would work with audio tracks.

I want them to figure out a way to let me virtually cross fade audio by applying the fade handle of multiple clips by a specified amound, and extending the audio of the selected clips by half the amount of the fade.

FCP viewer, I don't find I miss it that much. I guess I'd be pissed if they added it back and didn't give me a way to turn it off.

---------
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

Carsten Orlt
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:14:33 am

If you do either of those things you'd get FCP8...

I'd be pissed off if Apple would buckle under the perceived pressure of public forums and start making things the way they were. I think the new Multicam shows that they are striving to advance things, even if it might not be obvious from the beginning.

There are 2 NLE's with viewer and tracks out there. Plenty of choice if you don't like FCPx.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say 'shut up and put up'.

I'm just thinking that you might be missing something only because you are used to seeing it, not because you truly need it. It might be easier for you if you have them because that's what you are used too. But do you really, really need them. If I gain screen real estate for not having something I do not really need, aren't my benefits higher without them in long run?

just some thought,
Carsten


Return to posts index


Michael Aranyshev
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:34:38 am

[Carsten Orlt] "If you do either of those things you'd get FCP8..."

To get to FCP8 besides the tracks and the Viewer they'd need to fix 3-point editing, bring back real replace command and get rid of magnetic timeline. And that's just the start.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:29:21 am

B, I suppose.

Tracks would make me happy. The source viewer would be good, but the Montage and Speed Razor were no source viewer or source viewer-lite, so I COULD get used to it. I'm pretty much at a point, though, that it is what it is.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:30:42 am

[David Roth Weiss] "If Randy Ubillos and his team at Apple suddenly had a change of heart, and they added both audio tracks and the FCP viewer to FCPX, how many of you would be pissed-off, how many would be pleased?

Please pick one of the answers below:

a) I'd be pissed

b) I'd be pleased

c) I'd rather not say

If you'd like to explain your answer, please do. Next Friday I'll tally everyone's responses and we'll see what the consensus is.
"



Goody, a "push poll." And one that starts out by framing the program as "inadequate" to the extent that a "change of heart" is a central issue.

No "change of heart" is required, because nothing about X is currently broken.

You and a lot of others just can't "give up" on what the program once was.

But it's not that any more. It's something new, interesting, and rapidly developing.

So sorry, David, but I just don't accept your premis that having people "vote" on your constrained list of limited choices is at all valuable.

But if others want to participate, rock on.

I'm going to spend my time learning about all the new capabilities baked into 1.0.3.

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


Paul Dickin
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:50:30 am

[Bill Davis] "a "push poll.""
Hi
+ 1

So, d) None of the above.

Randy ≠ Apple.
Apple's ProApps marketing and customer relations sucks.
As long as Randy has a heart and continues to put it into this business, as a 20+ year veteran instigator of the NLE revolution he's worth hearing out.



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 7:12:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "So sorry, David, but I just don't accept your premis that having people "vote" on your constrained list of limited choices is at all valuable."

That's your point of view Bill. I have one too, and so do others.

Perhaps some day you'll learn to accept the fact that your POV is neither shared by everyone, nor is it the only correct POV.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 8:29:58 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Perhaps some day you'll learn to accept the fact that your POV is neither shared by everyone, nor is it the only correct POV.
"


David, I understand that perfectly well. But thanks for the reminder, I guess.

I have ONE view. Mine. Only time and the market will demonstrate whether my view is more or less accurate than yours. (or anyone else's, for that matter.)

Actually, my view is pretty simple. Virtually everything I've written here is based on a single idea. Don't pigeon-hole FCP-X as "broken" or "dumbed down" or "inadequate") Particularly don't do that if you can't even demonstrate understanding of how it actually operates. If you can show that, I'll listen to you. Some of my favorite exchanges here are those I have with Walter S, who pushes back at me all the time, but based on real arguments in intent, not knee-jerk "it's different and that alone makes me angry" stuff.

It's clear to all here that you've been pretty relentlessly negative about FCP-X as an approach to editing.

Fine. I just think your assessment is narrow and fundamentally flawed by your pre-conceptions. ((as are mine, I'll freely admit.)

We're now seeing a development path that shows pretty clearly that Apple is developing X as a fully professional editing tool.

Which partially belies you're your consistently tonal contention that it's incapable, ill-conceived, or somehow so deeply flawed as to make it unfit for professional use and that everyone must flee to one of the A's in order to remain "professional."

I've thought from day one that thinking like that was basically wrong. And this week, the tide has shifted more, IMO, to turn away from your view and a bit more toward mine.

That does not make me "right" and you "wrong" - because as I try to relentlessly acknowledge, different editors need different things.

I'm comfortable that if anyone looks back at these threads in a few years to see the POV of the participants - my view of "give it a chance, it's pretty amazing in design and operation - and it looks like it might be OUTSTANDING for many common editing tasks" will look to have been largely reasonable.

And the "it's a deeply broken toy capable of nothing worthy" view to have been short-sighted and rather foolish.

Period.

"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


David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:23:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's clear to all here that you've been pretty relentlessly negative about FCP-X as an approach to editing. "

Again Bill, that's simply your point of view, which has little relationship to my own POV.

The reality is, as I've said here many times before, X doesn't work for the majority of those with whom I interface, so therefore it doesn't work for me. I'm certainly not the only one saying that here, and there are many users around the world who have the same problem with FCPX.

I'm very happy that X works for you Bill; it's too bad you're incapable of accepting that X doesn't work the same for everyone else.

BTW, for the record, if you search the Cow for the terms "weiss translation," you will find that going way back to August 2011, I argued that, even though Apple said it was impossible, an XML translation tool could be developed that would make importing legacy projects possible.

So much for being relentlessly negative... I guess that makes me even more positive than the folks at Apple. It's a crying shame the Apple developers didn't bother to try making a 7 to X translator - we could have avoided many of the trails and tribulations that appear to pain you so very much.

It's a good thing Phil Hodgetts had the fortitude to question Apple on that one. Right? So, maybe it's not so bad to push for more?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:57:24 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "
It's a good thing Phil Hodgetts had the fortitude to question Apple on that one. Right? So, maybe it's not so bad to push for more?
"


Phil and I go back a ways. We've ended up talking a lot after the Supermeets over the past five or six NABs. He was kind enough to spend some time sitting with me to help me better understand the underpinnings of X at the last DV Expo.

So I think I can say with some confidence that regardless of how he might have "questioned" Apple along the path, he saw much more clearly than most the potential in FCP-X and has been a major supporter of their more modern "metadata accessible to the user" software approach right from the start.

He's obviously wise enough not to have taken one look at it - said "it's too different" - and wrote it off as "a massive mistake" at first blush.

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

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:39:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "He's obviously wise enough not to have taken one look at it - said "it's too different" - and wrote it off as "a massive mistake" at first blush.
"


There you go again Bill, your POV about FCPX is the only one that's correct and the only one that's well-conceived - anyone who disagrees with you had to have jumped to a false conclusion "at first blush."

The reality is, those who dismissed X at first blush are already gone.

So, get over it Bill, accept the fact that FCPX may be perfect for you, but it's still not perfect for everyone.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:50:39 pm

FCP legacy didn't give me the option to go with one Viewer (not did Avid except with Express I believe).
I don't recall FCP legacy allowing me to completely hide tracks either.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:53:50 pm

[Craig Seeman] "FCP legacy didn't give me the option to go with one Viewer "

What are you talking about. Just hit the minimize button on the source viewer and it goes away. Why you would want to is a different question.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:03:07 pm

[Herb Sevush] "What are you talking about. Just hit the minimize button on the source viewer and it goes away. "

Not the same thing. FCPX Viewer changes dynamically between Source and Record. FCP legacy didn't give me that option.



Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:09:07 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Not the same thing. FCPX Viewer changes dynamically between Source and Record. FCP legacy didn't give me that option."

Are we back to playing ridiculous word games. Legacy also doesn't give me the option to communicate with Mars, so what -

X refuses to give you options that are possible, Legacy gave you every option it could give you - you are correct that it couldn't give you an option for something it couldn't do at all.

The difference between the 2 is enormous.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:26:11 pm

I believe FCPX will eventual have a contextual option. The Mutlicam function is an example. You'll get two windows when you perform a task that requires two windows. FCP7 had not such variation. You got two whether you liked it or not.

In FCP7 if you had a bunch of tracks with video at one point in time and many minutes later you were just had video in track 1 and track 10 you had a lot of empty space. That would be compounded if Track 10's Video clip was tied to audio on their complimentary tracks although way down. It was a vertically inefficient. FCPX shows me what I need above/below at that moment in time. I can have 10 layers at one point and two at another and not have a lot of dead space.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:32:30 pm

[Craig Seeman] " You'll get two windows when you perform a task that requires two windows."

Who determines which task needs 2 windows, me or an Apple programmer who's never edited a show in his life?

[Craig Seeman] " I can have 10 layers at one point and two at another and not have a lot of dead space."

All you have created is worthless emptiness (sounds like a novel by Camus). The dead space still exists because you are locked into the geometry of the monitor. What exactly appears in this now "un-dead" space - zombies or icon's of Steve Jobs?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:43:05 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Who determines which task needs 2 windows, me or an Apple programmer"

In FCP legacy Apple programmers didn't give me an option either. If you prefer that method you have at least Avid or Premiere to chose from.

[Herb Sevush] "The dead space still exists because you are locked into the geometry of the monitor."

No, I can expand other windows. I suspect the advantage will be more significant once Apple allows more customization of the windows.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:47:03 pm

[Craig Seeman] "In FCP legacy Apple programmers didn't give me an option either."

I disagree. Of course they couldn't give you an option to do something the software wasn't capable of, but within the boundaries of the tools at hand Legacy gave options for almost everything. One of the things that made it hard to use for beginners was the fact that almost everything was customizable and there were multiple ways to do almost anything.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:34:12 pm

[Craig Seeman] "In FCP7 if you had a bunch of tracks with video at one point in time and many minutes later you were just had video in track 1 and track 10 you had a lot of empty space. That would be compounded if Track 10's Video clip was tied to audio on their complimentary tracks although way down. It was a vertically inefficient. FCPX shows me what I need above/below at that moment in time. I can have 10 layers at one point and two at another and not have a lot of dead space."

To some of us, empty vertical space is information. Not everyone cuts on a laptop screen.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:42:52 pm

[David Lawrence] "To some of us, empty vertical space is information."

Thanks for the opportunity to vamp on my earlier post.

In X the empty space has no value, but in any tracked system the empty track is itself information - If you use tracks 3-5 for EFX and they are empty at a certain point in time that tells you that there are "no effects at this point." It's sort of like the "rest" notation in music, it doesn't mean "nothing," it means that there is silence for a specific period of time for a specific type of sound, which is very valuable information to have.

With the magnetic timeline, since space has no meaning, the absence of objects in space has no specific meaning either. 4 tracks that become 2 tracks could mean the music stopped, could mean the dialogue stopped, could mean anything at all.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:45:13 pm

[David Lawrence] "To some of us, empty vertical space is information. Not everyone cuts on a laptop screen."

And to some of us it's waisted space and on bigger monitors it looks even more vacuous.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:03:16 am

[Craig Seeman] "and on bigger monitors it looks even more vacuous."

I'm using two 23" monitors but I'm missing the vacuity.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:10:30 am

[Craig Seeman] "And to some of us it's waisted space and on bigger monitors it looks even more vacuous."

If that's your experience, I can't argue with it. I personally never have a problem. Well-organized tracks usually have enough going on in them that I find any space is useful to understanding the whole, just as Herb posted earlier.

One thing that would be nice in Legacy would be the ability to completely collapse or hide tracks that don't need to be always viewed. Adobe has been doing this for years in AE and PP and it's nice. I think it's a better approach than simply throwing out the organization benefits of vertical space. Again, choice would be great.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:17:26 am

I think some of the anti track sentiment is totally justified by the way FCP and many NLEs display tracks and the clumsy way of viewing & selecting that most NLEs have compared to DAWs. But the answer is not to throw away the methodology because implementation has been poor in the past.

If I swap between Fairlight and FCP I find editing so primitive on FCP. I can see why FCPX has sought an alternative but without ever using a system where track based editing is done well, I think it is hard for many editors to understand the power of it.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:21:45 am

[David Lawrence] "Well-organized tracks usually have enough going on in them that I find any space is useful to understanding the whole"

I find that with X I have to do a whole lot more UI management than I ever have in 7. I'm constantly adjusting window layout height and clip view style and height to see what I need to. A set of saved user layout configurations that could be tied to hot keys would really be welcome. Plus with the magnetic timeline I also find the need now to management clip connection points so I don't delete a primary clip and inadvertently take the attached connected clips out with the same deletion.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:20:00 am

[Craig Seeman] "And to some of us it's waisted space and on bigger monitors it looks even more vacuous."

Sorry Craig, but as I've been saying all along, this really is the classic example of a solution looking for a problem. It's is one step forward, ten back, and the kind of thinking that's driven boat loads of committed FCP editors to AVID and Premiere.

It certainly seems to me that changing the entire editing paradigm, and forcing two million editors to either retrain or die, isn't really worth it.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27:21 am

They may lose half the current base but I suspect they're going to pick up a new one as time goes on.
I have heard from a few professional (even Broadcast) who are moving some things over to FCPX and basically don't participate in forums and don't want to given the environment.



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:44:32 am

[Craig Seeman] "They may lose half the current base but I suspect they're going to pick up a new one as time goes on.
"


Understood! But, this doesn't address the underlying questions I posed and have been posing all along, specifically about the magnetic timeline.

Is the magnetic timeline really necessary?

Is it really more efficient?

In the overall scheme of things, is the cost in dollars and in man-hours spent retraining millions of editors really worth it?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:53:03 am

[David Roth Weiss] "In the overall scheme of things, is the cost in dollars and in man-hours spent retraining millions of editors really worth it?"

But it won't be a retraining for new people. There's going to be a generation that started on iMovie, move to FCPX and into the professional market place. It's not going to be immediate. I think Apple is gambling on this.

I'm certainly not having issues retraining. I've done it a number of times in my life. I know others are too even if it's only a subset of their former market share for the time being.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:55:40 am

[Craig Seeman] "There's going to be a generation that started on iMovie, move to FCPX and into the professional market place. It's not going to be immediate. I think Apple is gambling on this."

Aren't you making a huge assumption that high school and college kids, who are also at under 10% Mac OS will only be exposed to iMovie as their entry-level editor? Remember the market at large is NOT Mac-dominant.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:00:02 am

[Oliver Peters] "Aren't you making a huge assumption that high school and college kids, who are also at under 10% Mac OS will only be exposed to iMovie as their entry-level editor? Remember the market at large is NOT Mac-dominant."

Halo effect from the iPad taking over the Textbook market with iBook Author.
I know, just a coincidence that Avid jumps to iPad at this point (I know it's a stretch but I'm having fun with it)



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 5:04:42 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Is the magnetic timeline really necessary?

Is it really more efficient?

In the overall scheme of things, is the cost in dollars and in man-hours spent retraining millions of editors really worth it?
"


Yes, to A

Yes, to B

and Yes to C.

A. Necessary because the single most common editing function is assembling scenes without gaps in a string on a timeline. Making that the default serves the majority needs of the largest group of editors.

B. Yes. I personally found I can get projects done faster in X after 3 months experience than I could after 10 years using Legacy. I'm certainly not smarter than any other editor. I'm certainly not more talented than any other editor. I am an AVERAGE working editor. Period. The only difference between me and most others is that I didn't succumb to the temptation to let my discomfort in the initial changes spoil my entire outlook about the new program.

X is a much more efficient editing program compared to Legacy primarily because they obviated the need to pre-render everything in order to get to work - just like FCPs competitors. I also find that the combination of pre-trimming in the Event Browser - AND the magnetic timeline seriously shortens the time from ingest to rough cut by very, very significant amounts. That time shortens even more during my common "stage 2" edit where I watch through the timeline for the first time and determine if there is benefit to re-arranging the order of either individual clips or any series of clips.

If you're editing to a "fixed script" and know the order of each and every scene in advance, this advantage will fade. But if you have the freedom to make order changes to your scene, magnetism can be a huge efficiency boost.

Finally, C is yet another example of pushing your individual view ahead of fact.

The truth is that nobody "forced" anyone to re-train on anything. If you don't want to re-train, fine. keep using Legacy. Sure you'll eventually have to change programs. But nobody has EVER had a guarantee that ANY piece of software would last forever.

So again, get over it.

FCP is no longer Legacy - it's X. Use it or don't.

But stop the incessant single minded drumbeat that you and the entire industry have been somehow mortally wounded.

David, you have NOT been wounded. You were likely a fine editor yesterday. And you are one today.

You do not resonate with FCP-X - fine - but what's the point of coming back time and time and time again proffering the same POV that X must prove to be somehow "more superior" to every other editing program in every area to be worthy of any respect?

What's up with that?

"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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "X is a much more efficient editing program compared to Legacy primarily because they obviated the need to pre-render everything in order to get to work - just like FCPs competitors."

Did they obviated the need to pre-render Red R3D, DPX or ARRIRAW? Was there the need to pre–render DV or DVCPRO-HD in Legacy?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 5:34:56 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Did they obviated the need to pre-render Red R3D, DPX or ARRIRAW? Was there the need to pre–render DV or DVCPRO-HD in Legacy?
"


Fair point, perhaps.

However, you list three "rising in the future" big data file formats - and then directly cite three "long in the tooth" small file legacy formats.

Apples and oranges.

Since X is a modern work in progress - it's up to the reader to consider whether as X moves into the future where Red, DPX and ARRIRAW are increasingly relevant - X might adapt really well to those needs.

It's already more "file format agile" than Legacy - tho certainly no more "perfect" than any other editing platform in handling literally "everything" that might be tossed at it today.

"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

Michael Hancock
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 5:47:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "Since X is a modern work in progress - it's up to the reader to consider whether as X moves into the future where Red, DPX and ARRIRAW are increasingly relevant - X might adapt really well to those needs."

Current, smaller data formats - how does it handle P2, AVC-Intra, AVCHD, and XDCam? Native file format, or does it require a rewrap?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 6:23:54 pm

One of my biggest gripes from the beginning of FCPX (and I like most of FCPX) is the file format handling.

Everything still needs to be a .mov, if it isn't, it gets rewrapped or it's simply unsupported.

The idea behind the FCPX way is awesome. Import and edit immediately while it transcodes in the background. we just need more format support and control.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 4, 2012 at 11:41:23 pm

[Michael Hancock] "[Bill Davis] "Since X is a modern work in progress - it's up to the reader to consider whether as X moves into the future where Red, DPX and ARRIRAW are increasingly relevant - X might adapt really well to those needs."

Current, smaller data formats - how does it handle P2, AVC-Intra, AVCHD, and XDCam? Native file format, or does it require a rewrap?
"


And what does "require a re-wrap" mean in the modern context.

Every NLE has to, at some point, take whatevr's tossed on it's timeline and transcode it to whatever you want as a target export steam. NOBODY with a brain wants to put an XDCAM clip next to a go-pro clip and want those two clips output into separate files. So one (or both) is going to have to be transcoded. Period.

What Apple re-built X to do was to accept a variety of formats on ingest (not universal, but pretty functional, IMO) and then do the transcoding in the background while letting the editor go about the business of doing the work of editing.

It's a smart modern approach that I understand other software employs as well.

Obviously "codecs" are a moving target. As long as the capability to do background transcoding is in place - the stopper for working with ANY format in a system like X's must be how easy or difficult the placed format is to transcode. Encodings with fewer "actual" frames and more "predictive" or "calculated" frames" will obviously be harder for any software to work with rapidly. But we're already seen that it's possible to build hardware level encoder/decoders that rapidly handle stuff like this. And I suspect that as workflows like X's grow in popularity - we might see more "transcoder boxes" that let you add hardware t to work efficiently with your particular flavor of footage. Isn't this essentially what the KiPro and it's kin are? They take a feed and do a ProRes transcode on the fly.

So only those that NEED the ability for super-rapid conversion have to pay for it.

Everyone else has to deal with the "slow but built-in" CPU or GPU based transcoding.

Seems perfectly fair to me since the other path is that the engineers have to "optimized" the software for all manner of footage types that I may never actually use.

Remember, this is general purpose affordable software. If you wish to use it with RED footage, isn't the presumption that you have the budget for access to something like a KiPro that simply makes the problem go away?

"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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 4, 2012 at 11:53:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "isn't the presumption that you have the budget for access to something like a KiPro that simply makes the problem go away?"

KiPro doesn't make the problem go away because video out on the Red One camera is either 60 or 50 fps no matter what actual shooting fps is and the timecode embedded in the Red One video out signal is 3 to 6 frames ahead of the actual timecode in recorded R3D.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 5, 2012 at 12:12:47 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "KiPro doesn't make the problem go away because video out on the Red One camera is either 60 or 50 fps no matter what actual shooting fps is and the timecode embedded in the Red One video out signal is 3 to 6 frames ahead of the actual timecode in recorded R3D."

I'm out of my depth with RED stuff, but that sounds suspiciously like a digital cousin of the "sound over distance' audio latency I've been dealing with for my whole career on live events.

If it's constant, can't you just RE-ID the signals frame to offset all the TC values by whatever the miss-match is? The digital equivalent of inserting a fractional signal DELAY when doing live audio and you need to "time sync" multiple speakers at variable distances from a stage?

If the problem is any kind of simple "math offset" I can't believe it will be long before someone writes a few lines of updated code to fix it.

Seems kinda trivial. But that's probably because I don't actually understand the issues you're facing well 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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 5, 2012 at 12:35:39 am

Timecode on the video out is ahead of timecode in recorded file and the offset is not constant.

Anyway, offline/online workflow survived transition from dilm to videotape, from linear to non–linear, from tape to tapeless, from film to "digital negative". It simply makes more sense in more situations.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 5, 2012 at 12:53:08 am

You're talking around the question Bill.

[Bill Davis] "And what does "require a re-wrap" mean in the modern context."

The same thing it's always meant. Can it read the native file that comes off the camera or does it rewrap it as a Quicktime, or transcode it to a Quicktime. Let's not play semantics and redefine things (we're not Apple) - does it read P2 .mxf or does it have to be .mov? XDCam or .mov? Pretty basic question and elementary thing to expect a modern NLE to do (read camera native files).

[Bill Davis] "What Apple re-built X to do was to accept a variety of formats on ingest (not universal, but pretty functional, IMO) and then do the transcoding in the background while letting the editor go about the business of doing the work of editing.

It's a smart modern approach that I understand other software employs as well. "


Is FCPX's implementation really that smart? If it requires .mov files for everything it fills your hard drive up with duplicate media as it rewraps in the background. Even if it happens in the background, is it really necessary?

Other NLEs function quite differently - Avid reads a ton of stuff native but some formats are more usable when transcoded (but not in the background - hopefully in the future). Adobe and Edius are all native all the time, until export. I believe Vegas is mostly native right now, isn't it? I'd venture to say FCPX has the smallest list of natively supported camera files, and it's a "scrape to the foundations and rebuild for the modern era" NLE.

[Bill Davis] "And I suspect that as workflows like X's grow in popularity - we might see more "transcoder boxes" that let you add hardware t to work efficiently with your particular flavor of footage. Isn't this essentially what the KiPro and it's kin are? They take a feed and do a ProRes transcode on the fly. "

Workflows like X's? What is that workflow? Requiring Quicktime files to immediately begin working, or is it something else? That's very vague Bill. Let's be specific to really discuss the benefits, and drawbacks, of FCPX in a modern world.

KiPro is great for something like a DSLR, but for XDCam? P2? AVCIntra? The camera's native files are fine on their own - the issue is with FCPX's ability to handle them, isn't it? Background transcoding is great and sounds like it's implemented very well, but it shouldn't be necessary for some of this stuff. I may be wrong though - FCPX may playback P2 .mxf files fine, right off the card, without rewrapping, but you never answered that. Does it?

[Bill Davis] "So only those that NEED the ability for super-rapid conversion have to pay for it.

Everyone else has to deal with the "slow but built-in" CPU or GPU based transcoding.

Seems perfectly fair to me since the other path is that the engineers have to "optimized" the software for all manner of footage types that I may never actually use."


Avid and Edius and Adobe and Vegas are able to provide playback of all types of footage (some better than others). Either they have brilliant engineers or Apple decided native camera formats aren't important or necessary (like tape?).

These are things I think should be considered when talking about how FCPX might grow for the future and how it integrates into modern workflows. When a new camera comes out, should FCPX support the native camera files, or should the camera manufacturer program their camera to record to multiple codecs and file formats? Or should camera men and women purchase hardware transcoders for clients that choose NLE A rather than NLE B? Where does the responsibility lie?

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 6:04:31 pm

I just wanted to point that DSLR footage is not "everything".


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
So long Bill
on Feb 4, 2012 at 7:07:20 pm

Bill,

I was going to respond to the two things you wrote that are even remotely worthy of a response. However, as has been pointed out to me by many, the audience here aren't blind, and they don't need me to point out the flaws and fabrications in your rhetoric.


Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:24:11 am

So two million editors can learn Avid or Adobe but aren't capable of learning FCPX? I have more respect for their capabilities than that.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:31:39 am

[John Godwin] "So two million editors can learn Avid or Adobe but aren't capable of learning FCPX?"

Many can't use X for what they do John, so it's not a matter that they can't learn it, it's a matter of why bother.

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

John Godwin
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 2:01:51 am

But your comment was about Apple forcing millions of editors to retrain or die, as you said. I certainly understand that FCPX may not work for everyone's workflow. From my probably excessive reading of this forum I haven't seen anyone claiming that, though you like to pretend they have. I'm not certain it'll work for mine in all cases, for that matter. But my point was that the essentials of understanding editing are common to all platforms. And that a smart person has the capability and the choice of learning one or several or all.

Why bother? Because every tool in your toolbox makes you more valuable. And I have survived enough changes in this business to appreciate that. (I'm trying to match you in condescension but I don't think I'm capable of that.)

Best,
John


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 2:39:48 am

[John Godwin] "I certainly understand that FCPX may not work for everyone's workflow. From my probably excessive reading of this forum I haven't seen anyone claiming that, though you like to pretend they have."

I don't know what you've been reading John, because this is the number one complaint of most broadcast editors here, and it has been since X was first rolled-out. I've certainly been saying it since day one. Walter Biscardi, Shane Ross, Oliver Peters, Chris Harlan, and Richard Harrington have all been saying the same thing right here since June 21st, 2011. And, two weeks ago, Mark Raudonis of Bunim/Murray, one of the largest creators of reality programming in the world, said the same as well, when he announced his company was moving back to AVID.

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

John Godwin
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 3:00:26 am

[John Godwin] "I certainly understand that FCPX may not work for everyone's workflow. From my probably excessive reading of this forum I haven't seen anyone claiming that, though you like to pretend they have."

"I don't know what you've been reading John, because this is the number one complaint of most broadcast editors here, and it has been since X was first rolled-out. I've certainly been saying it since day one. Walter Biscardi, Shane Ross, Oliver Peters, Chris Harlan, and Richard Harrington have all been saying the same thing right here since June 21st, 2011. And, two weeks ago, Mark Raudonis of Bunim/Murray, one of the largest creators of reality programming in the world, said the same as well, when he announced his company was moving back to AVID."

I phrased that clumsily in rewriting this on my iPad, sorry. But if you read it in context, my point was that I don't see the supporters of FCPX claiming that it will be right for everyone. I'm well aware of the people you mention.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 6:38:38 am

It's never going to happen...so what's the point in asking? Just want to see how many people like the new way FCX does things?

Gotta give up the ghost. Apple is going with this editing paradigm....

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 7:13:47 am

B

And they wouldn't even have to be audio tracks.

Just allow for more than one Primary. Let me have as many as I want. Folks who are happy with only one track can keep working as they currently do. Nothing changes. Folks like myself who need more can add them as needed. Use them for audio or video just like now. Connect things to them and create truly meaningful clip relationships rather than being forced into the half-baked notion that everything relates to a single "Primary".

Something like this would be truly powerful and flexible. Multiple Primaries would rock! I doubt we'll ever see it.

A source viewer would be nice too. Even though I hear we're now in a brave new world of "21st century" media, I still like to match eye-lines and spot motion continuity when cutting.

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


Return to posts index

Ben Scott
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:50:52 am

not sure if tracks are needed for this, more a form of auto bussing using roles and recording live to a new connected clip or keyframe and fx control track that acts like a track with a role added to it that

suppose what I am suggesting is like using the adjustment track trick (using blank title template to apply filters to clips underneath) for audio instead of visuals

the source window has 2 particular functions which is needed which is ganging to check reference quicktimes or for proper replace edits. these will I imagine appear, however I really doubt the source window as it was will reappear, it isnt needed like people percieve it to.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:52:51 am

David,
Why to try to improve the perfection (the Holly Grail of video editing).?
Why to try to add a preview window so you can see a picture before and after color correction?
Why to make a really customizable GUI with different views up to the need of the editor?
There are people that for what they do this is perfect.
Please don't bother them trying to make them understand that for the kind of jobs you do this doesn't works.
There are people that will never understand that all is not about sticking shoots as fast as possible.
Some people are unable to understand that for some others, video editing is like the chess game where you need a board where to see all your pieces at the same time.


For my self the real excitement of the week comes from the FC7 to FCPX translator. That adds to FCP more options for finishing. FCPX has a lot of things that I really love. Being able to skip that senseless magnetic timeline and the paradigmatic jargon would be much appreciated.
With that scope, Multicam and Broadcast are great. Was time; and a matter of survival for FCPX.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 8:52:28 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Some people are unable to understand that for some others, video editing is like the chess game where you need a board where to see all your pieces at the same time. "

Just because I can't resist - you do realize that there are lots and lots of exceptional chess players who are so good that they don't even need a physical board?

They simply "think differently' about the game than the player that has to exclusively use visual cues to maintain orientation.

Once again, what YOU may need to edit effectively, might not be what I need.

That's the wonderful thing about choice.

The X coders may or may not ever put back what you miss, Rafael. But without doubt, they've forced all of us to re-consider what we "must" have to be able to create effective content.

In my case, it's been an exciting and personally empowering new path. I'm so much more excited to approach my editing work with these new tools than I was after 10+ years of Legacy.

Sorry you're not having as enjoyable time.

Peace.

"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

Chris Harlan
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:06:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "Just because I can't resist - you do realize that there are lots and lots of exceptional chess players who are so good that they don't even need a physical board?"

They may not NEED one to conceive a game in their head, but I don't know anyone who doesn't WANT one.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:07:03 pm

[Bill Davis] "you do realize that there are lots and lots of exceptional chess players who are so good that they don't even need a physical board? They simply "think differently' about the game than the player that has to exclusively use visual cues to maintain orientation."

Bill your metaphors are so illogical that I can't resist, especially since I grew up with one of those chess players, one who could give me a drubbing without looking at the board. But they don't "think differently" -- they have the ability to visualize the board in their minds, and in the case of those who can play simultaneous blind chess, the memory to go from one visualization to another. But the board they visualized is the board you can see - they don't have it encoded in a different way. A chess board is a chessboard, 64 spaces arranged vertically and horizontally. If my brother had grown up with a magnetic chessboard, where ranks and files came and went as the game changed, he'd have switched to bridge long ago.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:42:00 pm

[Herb Sevush] "If my brother had grown up with a magnetic chessboard, where ranks and files came and went as the game changed, he'd have switched to bridge long ago.
"


But Herb,

Perhaps your brother might have really enjoyed one of those "try level" chess games that we all saw in the original StarTrek series?

Just because the game has been played in two dimensions for generations and plenty, PLENTY difficult in that form, doesn't mean that there should NEVER be a different way to visualize things.

; )

"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: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:49:15 pm

[Bill Davis] "Perhaps your brother might have really enjoyed one of those "try level" chess games that we all saw in the original StarTrek series?"

I've played it, he's played it, it was new, it was not better.

[Bill Davis] "Just because the game has been played in two dimensions for generations and plenty, PLENTY difficult in that form, doesn't mean that there should NEVER be a different way to visualize things."

Tri level chess isn't a different way to visualize chess, it's a different game. And there's a reason why it isn't played much -- it isn't as much fun. In restriction there can be great freedom.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Roland Blaser
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:30:35 am

My answer is "b" for sure (want the audio tracks back).
For my TV workflow it is much easier to have the old fashioned audio tracks. Gives me a clear presentation of the whole audio stuff like IT, narration track, music, special effects and so on. I'm editing at home but as the final audio mix is done within the TV station, I have to output omf audio with a given track distribution - that's a professional workflow I'm faced with since the invention of non-linear editing.
Yes, I'm one of those old fashioned guys who would like to have FCP8 instead of FCPX. I'm sure FCPX has some very nice features. However, I need to make money with my editing tool. And I prefer a robust tool over a tool with a lot of gadgets. I'm sure FCP8 could have most of the nice FCPX stuff implemented - but the "old fashioned" way I prefer. New is not always better, sometimes it's just different. Concerning editing: it's rather difficult to invent the wheel again and again. Since Apple had the arrogance to tell me what workflow is good for me, I have a pretty different view concerning this company...

********
Science journalist, cameraman, video editor. 30 years of science communication for Swiss National TV. Awarded Prix Media by Swiss Academy of Science. Nominee Descartes Prize for Science Communication European Union.
> Mac Pro 8 core, MacBook Pro. AJA ioHD. FCP 7.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:57:50 pm

B

In fact, simply create a toggled preference. Add source viewer as a window, like scopes or angle editor. Give choice of magnetic versus "traditional" timeline. That would be both video and audio tracks and NOT magnetic.

And while they are at it, add a preference to disable all GUI animations.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 1:51:30 pm

I have been taking my own poll myself David. In covering sports I travel from state to state and even when I stay at home, out of state folks come here to cover their teams. I ask them all about X. It's starting to take off. BTW, most of us that work in sports do other work also.

Since I'm coming in direct contact with people from around the country multiple times a week I think that give s me a unique opportunity to get a feel from many different people.

Also folks that don't get speed you must not work in sports or news.
We can't walk out to the mound and ask the players to hold up the game while we work.
The game is the game. Working under the gun is often quite challenging, rather than, take as much time as you need.

The rub was that no matter how long you had been in the game and no matter what you worked on, if you saw potential in this product or enjoyed working with it you were all of the sudden not a "pro"
As insulting as that was, it's how some feel. Thus the debate. Let's do it.

The angle from many has been that this product was aimed at half a-- editors, amateurs and some even said "hobbyist"
I never found that credible, and I really don't after yesterday.

Look at that demo for Multi-cam. Look at that crew. The Porsche Cayenne crane cam? Are you freakin
kidding me? What do you think those guys day rate is? What about that copter pilot, or even that guy with the wrap around gropro set-up? They had the ALEXA out there. You would really have to stretch your imagination to say that those guys are "hobbyist"
They are some of the top people in the game using the top gear in the game.

You know why? Because that's who they are aiming at.

That demo that they made in X looked AWESOME btw.

I'm not convinced they weren't already working on this before. Look back at that first demo last year.
Same cars, same track some of the same angles. Did they hire that crew back and reshoot because people complained and spent all that money, or was this stuff in the can because they knew were they were going?

64 camera angles. The only thing I work on with those kind of numbers is the Olympics.

I got used to not having that viewer. I like looking at one BIG screen now instead of two smaller ones.
I want to see stuff big. If I could work on a 52 inch screen that would be ideal for me.

I vote A : )


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:25:48 pm

[tony west] "I got used to not having that viewer. I like looking at one BIG screen now instead of two smaller ones.
I want to see stuff big. If I could work on a 52 inch screen that would be ideal for me."


If you have monitor out you can have source and timeline viewers and watch your material all day on any size screen you want. You want 52 inch screen, go for it. No reason to give up source viewers. As multi-cam has now demonstrated X works very well with 2 viewers. Maybe Apple should just allow for single angle multi-cam and make everyone happy.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:59:09 pm

I hear you Herb.

but let me ask you, are you looking at booth your viewer screen and canvas screen simultaneously?

Both at the same time, all the time or one or the other?

I guess I only look at one at a time for the most part so it doesn't matter as long as they switch quickly.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:21:19 pm

[tony west] "are you looking at booth your viewer screen and canvas screen simultaneously?"

When comparing eye lines I need to look simultaneously, also when checking color matching between shots. If a single viewer could shift just by reading my mind that would be fine, but having to use a keystroke for that action would get to be a drudge.

For Multi-Cam, which is most of what I do, you have to have both up simultaneously, which is why X uses a viewer window in that mode. By acknowledging that it's possible to have a viewer window at all, X now begs the question - why not give the editor the option in normal editing modes? I'm not saying you should be forced to give up your screen real estate, but it should be up to the editor - which seems to go against the grain of the X design philosophy, but who knows?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:11:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I'm not saying you should be forced to give up your screen real estate, but it should be up to the editor "

OK, I agree. Let the editor decide.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:52:24 pm

I have no problem with that. Given Apple's methodology with this I suspect it will be contextual though rather than always on. Of course we know many editors want always on though. Personally I'm not wedded to always on. There are times when I need it.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:59:47 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Given Apple's methodology with this I suspect it will be contextual though rather than always on. "

That's one of my big conceptual problems with X, the idea that the programmers understand the context better than the editor. If the editor wants it to be always on, he should have that option - it's not up to someone else to determine what's best for any given editor. The multi-cam viewer demonstrates they can give that option, now it remains to be seen if they will.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 8:43:25 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I have no problem with that. Given Apple's methodology with this I suspect it will be contextual though rather than always on. Of course we know many editors want always on though. Personally I'm not wedded to always on. There are times when I need it."

I once got a tour of the Disney Magic cruise liner bridge.

Great view, state of the art controls.

Later, the first officer took us on a tour of the port side remote steering controls, which are used to control the massive ship when in a specialized situation like tuning up the ships position next to an object that you can't see from way up on the bridge.

Sure enough, a passenger got ill on the cruise, and when the sea ambulance came alongside, the ship was piloted by those very same remote controls.

I suspect they too, designed and built the primary steering apparatus first - since that would be used 99% of the time. Then designed the remote unit to meet the needs of the special operations.

It appears that FCP-X is developing with the same general sort of thinking.

Get the core stuff in place first, test it and perfect it so that everything works properly. Then design and install the items that are used less often but fulfill specific needs.

Made for a great cruise ship.

I suspect the same approach will end up constructing a great editing tool as well.

We shall see.

"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: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:47:35 pm

It's obvious to me.

"The answer is D (D?). All of the above"

[Herb Sevush] " also when checking color matching between shots."

How would you do this in Color, for example? The Still Store and a split screen? Easily achievable in X, and it's not a dedicated grading app.

Color has one viewer.

As far as Apple saying that a XML translator wasn't available, they said that it couldn't be done "with perfect fidelity" and they are quite right. 7toX is great, but if you look at the semantics, Apple is right. It's not perfect fidelity. It gets you very very close, and it's extremely usable.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:56:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "How would you do this in Color, for example? The Still Store and a split screen? Easily achievable in X, and it's not a dedicated grading app. Color has one viewer."

Tried color, never used it much; but tell me what's quicker and easier, still store and split screen, or looking up at a viewer window?

Since multicam always needs a viewer I guess I'm just used to it. X gives me the viewer in multicam mode so it's mostly a conceptual point for me and I probably shouldn't complain till after I've tried it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 12:44:46 am

I'm frequently looking at both simultaneously. Here's an example of the sort of problems I come up against:

I had to edit a long, two handed dialogue scene. There were no individual close ups of this scene. The director had shot a medium of both characters from one angle and a wide from another angle. Large portions of both actors bodies were visible in both shots. Both actors were reasonably inexperienced and didn't really understand the importance of matching their body position between takes. I had to cut between these two angles six or seven times during the 1 minute 30 scene and any differences in actor positions between shots was glaring and jolting. Nightmare.

It took me about 8 hours to get the scene cut satisfactorily in the end. I can't imagine how I would done it at all if I was not able to constantly see the first frame of the incoming clip and the last frame of the previous clip at the same time. It would take days.

There's plenty of work where a source monitor is not crucial but I think it's giving yourself unnecessary difficulties to try to do narrative work with a unified viewer.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:05:58 am

[Dominic Deacon] "There's plenty of work where a source monitor is not crucial but I think it's giving yourself unnecessary difficulties to try to do narrative work with a unified viewer."

I don't think there are many editors who would disagree. And, that's the point of my straw pole. I'd really like to know how many people ever really disliked the viewer in the first place, how many think abandoning the source monitor is really an improvement, and who'd object if it reappeared, even if it's only optional or contextual.

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

Steve Connor
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:07:18 am

[David Roth Weiss] "and who'd object if it reappeared, even if it's only optional or contextual."

Why would anyone object if it was optional?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:14:26 am

[Steve Connor] "Why would anyone object if it was optional?"

Bill? :)

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

Bill Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:55:14 am

Look,

A lot of this is merely some people getting stuck on the fact that they just don't handle change well.

For years we had a rope to pull that rang the bell. We got totally conditioned to sounding the bell to signal that we were hungry.

Some people are stuck on the fact that when checking out a potential new place to live, there's no rope! No bell! Some found that terrifying. "Will I starve? With no bell can I survive? The bell is central to my happiness" will be where their thinking gets stuck. Yes, I'm horribly and unfairly simplifying to make a broad point.

X has never been the end of all that's good in editing.

Those who didn't panic figured out that while, yes, the bell was disconnected, there's now a button that operates a buzzer that gets you the same food.

Argue all you like about how much a rope and bell is "superior" to the buzzer.

But really, who cares?

If you're any good at making videos, you can do so with any of the NLEs commonly discussed here.

Stick with the bell. Move to a place with a buzzer. Buy yourself a Gong if that floats your boat.

We're at the point where there's a new option in town and it's exciting, capable and evolving rapidly.

It doesn't diminish or invalidate other choices -it just presents a nice new one.

FCP-X is working well for many editors. The missunderstandings are fading away. The truth of the new design is earning its rightful place, in the wide arsenal it editing tools - one editor at a time.

Nobody knows what that place will be in the long run, but with a company as financially strong as Apple backing it, and a pedigree so strong in the engineering lineup - only a fool would bet against it as a wise alternative choice to keep an eye on. It will earn it place by virtue of the needs it meets for each user.

Totally fair. Totally consistent with any other competing tool.

Good time to be a video editor, in my opinion. Yes the competition is fierce, but with change always comes opportunity.

And X is opportunity writ large in my mind.

"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

Steve Connor
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:12:45 am

[Dominic Deacon] "It took me about 8 hours to get the scene cut satisfactorily in the end. I can't imagine how I would done it at all if I was not able to constantly see the first frame of the incoming clip and the last frame of the previous clip at the same time. "

FCPX does this while trimming, it shows you both frames.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:18:28 am

[Steve Connor] "CPX does this while trimming, it shows you both frames."

My own beef (or Tofu or Seitan) is that it does that with mouse trimming but not keyboard. I hope they implement the latter as well. FCPX will be a major improvement over FCP7 in timeline trimming but they do need to add a few more things as I expect they will.



Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:40:32 am

But I don't use trim mode. I'm on a editor that has a choice of source and record windows seperate or unified and where trim and standard editing are seperate modes you have to jump between. I've never edited with a single viewer and never in trim mode. Trim modes change your mindset as an editor and to me are not as true. Of course some people disagree and prefer to work that way. Choice is key.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 2:04:57 am

[Dominic Deacon] "Trim modes change your mindset as an editor and to me are not as true. Of course some people disagree and prefer to work that way. Choice is key."

I agree with you again Dominic.

A few years ago, someone from Apple wrote a post on the FCP Forum asking for input about changes they were thinking about making to the slow-mo and clip speed features. It stirred-up a real hornet's nest.

Some on the forum argued vehemently that changing clip speed should ripple the timeline as it always had since the beginning of FCP. Others argued just as strongly that the clip length should change, without rippling the timeline. I told them that, ten years earlier, Discreet edit* allowed the user to toggle that feature as they saw fit. Thankfully, the Apple took my advice.

I wish Apple would get back on track with letting users have their choice. As Herb Zevush has stated many times, "Who knows better how I need to edit, me or a software engineer who's never edited a day in his life?"

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

Lance Bachelder
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:35:55 pm

Jeesh Tony - might wan a consider running for office or something - I'm convinced - A!

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:10:13 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "might wan a consider running for office or something"

hehehe : )


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:44:51 pm

b) I'd be pleased

For no other reason than it would give us more choices for how we wanted to work with our media and it would mean that Apple might actually be listening to editors when they say, "Please give us the ability to customize our tool sets". That being said, I think features such as this will likely be added via third party apps (if ever) and that still leaves me a bit concerned. As anyone who works with a system that is third party dependent for functionality will tell you, upgrades become much more complex when you add more vendors to the mix. Look at the current state of FCPX. Sony, perhaps the biggest equipment manufacturer on the planet is still saying they are "working" on making XDCAM and FCPX work together natively (vs. re-wrapping media). If they can't develop products concurrently, what chance do you think the others vendors have?

For all the pros and cons that third party functionality brings to the table, I still say the ultimate decider for choosing this path is Apple's ability to make more "app" sales and shed development and support for their product. Totally sound business decision, but not the best design decision for creating complex functionality that is forward robust. Perhaps the industry will become better at coordinating development. I certainly hope that will be the case, but how many years has that model existed on the Windows/PC side of the fence? And how many can honestly say that upgrading OS/Application/Plug-ins is a smooth process? Face it, one of the biggest things FCS had going for it is the fact that the hardware/OS/application came from the same company. That being said, upgrades are always a challenge (even with Apple's old paradigm) but I still have to wonder if the new third party functionality model is going to be better or worse.

All that being said, it's always easier for individuals to deal with the issues I just described (staying current with hardware/software/plug-ins) but for facilities, it's a different story.

Sorry for the digression, just stream of thought for the morning. Fingers are frisky today.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:05:29 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "I still have to wonder if the new third party functionality model is going to be better or worse."

To which I have only two words to say:

Automatic Duck.

(With all due respect to the excellent folks involved).

It's an unsustainable business model. Who in their right minds is going to build an editing business that relies on the ability of small third parties to a) stay in business, b) keep their products up-to-date, c) create products that are 100% reliable and robust (again with apologies to all the excellent third parties who are doing their best), d) read Apple's mind, etc., etc.?

Not me.

Unless Apple bring all the essential functionality into the app - and right at the head of that list has to be OMF - I can't see my business adopting FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:44:01 pm

Third party development allows for competitive alternatives to perform a function.
In app development locks one into a single method.
Apple though, has had a history of taking a "third party" product's concept and building in the features.
Built in sync vs Plural Eyes is an example.

Are you assuming that just because Apple doesn't have a key feature now means they wont' incorporate it later because a third party fills the role at the moment?

Remember there was a third party app for multicam before FCP legacy built that in too.



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:43:49 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Third party development allows for competitive alternatives to perform a function."

I very much doubt that at this micro economic level the wonders of the free market actually operate the way you are suggesting.

Intelligent Assistance for example stated at the time they brought out Xto7 that they were holding off from developing the 7toX translator because they had got wind that someone else was doing it.

Obviously this has since changed but the point still holds.

What small operator (and that's what we're talking about here) is going to devote scarce resources to developing products that may or may not have competitors stealing their tiny market share?

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


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 8:37:12 pm

What are you using OMF's for? OMF's and EDLs are very old legacy stuff. Avid is encouraging .AAF's for MC to Pro Tools which is a more robust file which can also include video. I know there are a lot of sound guys out there with old gear because they don't want to update their plug-ins etc. but cry me a river...

I would love to see useable .AAF import/export from FCPX or a 3rd party app that can do both and something costing $499 each way like legacy Auto Duck.

Once you have solid .AAFs you can send them anywhere - to Symphony, Pro Tools, Nuendo, PPro etc.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 8:47:27 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "I know there are a lot of sound guys out there with old gear because they don't want to update their plug-ins etc. but cry me a river..."

It was well into the life of FCP legacy that some sound people were still requesting 3/4" with ch2 or address track time code.

If you look at Avid's ProTools Hardware upgrade pricing I think you'd see the river of tears.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Logic Pro X took advantage of those tears. Not that I'd know off hand how they'd do that.

Just my personal conjecture but I was thinking we wouldn't see Logic in the App Store until X came out. That Logic is in there now makes me think that Apple is not rushing it out X for some XTra work being done. Yes only my personal conjecture.



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 8:59:15 pm

I hope your right about Logic X - would be great to send FCPX show right into Logic for final mix including surround. Been looking at Logic a lot lately and it really is uber cool - just don't know anyone using it for post sound.

I've been spoiled as a long-time Vegas user being able to do full surround mix while editing picture but want to go fully Apple if possible - nothing against Windows at all just really like FCPX!

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:02:06 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "What are you using OMF's for? OMF's and EDLs are very old legacy stuff. "

Although I agree with your point about AAFs, OMF is still more universally accepted in the audio world. I have yet to have any ProTools guy ask for AAFs. About old stuff, the top commercial mixer in our town (does most of the agency work) is still on ProTools running on OS9! His system rocks.

EDLs are preferred by the DI guys. I have a client who uses a top commercial colorist in LA for his grading work on spots. They have a Baselight system and the request is always for EDLs. Yep, a 40-year-old standard that still seems to be more versatile in this file-based world ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:29:58 pm

Exactly - OS9! Typical sound guy lol! Just stating that in the modern digital era where soul patches, tiny pony tails on bald guys (I'm bald so) and puka shells are kinda sad, Avid and Pro Tools now work with AAF's. It's just better.

We still have overseas distributors that want BetaSP and we just say no - you're getting finished files on a hard drive "how would you like them?". Sometimes you have to give folks a little push...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:32:25 pm

[Oliver Peters] "
EDLs are preferred by the DI guys."


Absolutely - here in the UK too, EDL is still the lingua franca in the DI world. Editors don't get too choose stuff like this - we have to be able to deliver what the folks at the other end of the chain require.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:42:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "EDLs are preferred by the DI guys. I have a client who uses a top commercial colorist in LA for his grading work on spots. They have a Baselight system and the request is always for EDLs. Yep, a 40-year-old standard that still seems to be more versatile in this file-based world ;-)
"


I second that. I find EDLs extremely useful. If you have to interact with a lot of people, sooner or later, you are going to find one very useful. My uses vary from pulling selects across platform or from around the world to making legal reports on footage use for music and licensing. True, I haven't on-lined anything from an edl in well over a decade, but that doesn't mean that they are not useful.

I mean, its just a simple list of shots that can be read across platform and also be represented in a text file. I can see why a number of non-industrial users may never have to interact with timecode, let alone edls, but it stymies me that such a simple and useful thing is being treated like shed lizard skin.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:27:43 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "What are you using OMF's for?"

If this is addressed to me, I was using OMF as a minimum requirement.

Yes, AAF is more fully functional and in fact AVID now only supports AAF for export from MC.

Having said that, OMF still works fine for audio, so I think I'd just like to see FCPX try to walk before we think about running.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:56:12 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "What are you using OMF's for?"

[Simon] If this is addressed to me, I was using OMF as a minimum requirement. Yes, AAF is more fully functional and in fact AVID now only supports AAF for export from MC.

OK as a sound post pro with the latest Fairlight I can set the record straight. AAF costs $500 to license. So Fairlight opted to allow the user to license AAF if they want to use it. I can't see a single reason to pay a license for AAF.

I want only one thing from an edit to start sound post. Clips with handles on tracks. None of the mixing, clip EQ, dynamic levels. So OMF delivers this in a reliable robust way. I have to take files from all edit platforms and I choose OMF over AAF because it is robust and cross platform and cross NLE reliable. It took a long time for that to happen and ironically both OMF and EDLs became default standards because they are legacy and no-one fiddles with them.

Don't want embedded video either, although that was always available in OMF. And Simon the trick to forcing AVID to export an OMF is to copy the sequence, delete the video, change the setting to standard def and the OMF export option magically appears. They may have taken it out of MC6 but as far as I know all other versions can be cheated this way.


Return to posts index

Jim Glickert
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:22:40 pm

My answer: B. I would be pleased. To be honest, though, it wouldn't lead me to purchase FCP X.

The lack of a source viewer was one of two principal reasons I declined to purchase FCP X. The other was the introduction of the magnetic timeline. The way in which I edit my videos makes the use of a source viewer and non-magnetic timeline important to me. I mostly enjoyed using FCP for the last four years, and grew very comfortable with it. I didn't see the need to scrap it.

Now that I've purchased Premiere Pro and After Effects, I have even less interest in FCP X. Premiere Pro works great, and was pretty easy to learn. After Effects is extremely powerful, and its integration with Premiere Pro is outstanding. Motion 4 was nice, but I found it to never work well with FCP, and it crashed all the time.

FCP X would have to change dramatically in order for me to purchase it. Even then, I can't imagine dumping Premiere Pro and After Effects.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:51:24 pm

Push poll for sure.

That one has Source / Record (I like old English) in multicam probably means it can/will be implemented in context. I don't want an "always on" Source / Record. A Gang feature, as one sees in multicam, would be useful. The Two Up, which happens when trimming with the mouse, should also be there when trimming with the keyboard. There are certainly times when I'd like to look at the In/Out of one clip when hunting for its compliment. To call it contextually would be more elegant than always on Source / Record. so D) None of the Above.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:56:43 pm

[Craig Seeman] "To call it contextually would be more elegant than always on Source / Record"

How about letting the editor decide the context instead of the programmer? Why not a simple option to have a source viewer at the editor's discretion; whenever, whyever?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:30:48 pm

B - definitely for the viewer.

Regarding tracks, I've been thinking about this a lot. One idea I had is something similar to the way Google acquiesced with nested tags in Gmail. They ended up making tags work in a folder-less paradigm. They can look like folders, but they're not.

So, same idea for FCPX. Assuming all your audio is properly tagged with it's role assignment, there could be a way to organize all the media in your timeline based on it's "tag" or role. So, all the music would appear to be on tracks 6-10, but in reality it's just the program showing it to you in a clear and concise way. You could also drag a clip into the lane "bucket" and it would get assigned the role you've assigned that area.

My problem with the timeline right now, is that it's very confusing - even if you know what's going on. You have to keep switching clip height modes and when clips are compressed, you can't see if you've made a j-cut or an L-cut. It's just not intuitive in that regard.

I just wish that I could easily see and work with multi-channel audio in the timeline without having to detach and open in timeline, etc... To me that's counter-productive. I just want to be able to quickly make a channel L or R, louder or softer - and do it all in the timeline. Anyone have any tips on a better workflow for that? I hate detaching for fear of audio going out of sync and not having sync markers.



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:17:22 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Are you assuming that just because Apple doesn't have a key feature now means they wont' incorporate it later because a third party fills the role at the moment?"
Craig,
We've been waiting 10 years for a decent de-intelacer in FC, 10 years for a decent built in up/downscaling option. FCP has gone to the grave with lots of transitions and effects still working in 8b RGB.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:59:27 pm

[Rafael Amador] "We've been waiting 10 years for a decent de-intelacer in FC, 10 years for a decent built in up/downscaling option. FCP has gone to the grave with lots of transitions and effects still working in 8b RGB."

10 years and FCP legacy never approached the capability of trimming in Avid. FCPX is much closer although it still needs some work. 10 years of relying on plugins and apps for decent chroma keying and FCPX chroma keying as of 10.0.3 may be the best built in keyer for a general purpose NLE.

I have no issue depending on third party products and I suspect Apple will be integrating quite a bit as time goes on. Others may not be worth it as time goes on. The need for some things decline over time.



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:20:23 pm

[Michael Garber] "My problem with the timeline right now, is that it's very confusing - even if you know what's going on. You have to keep switching clip height modes and when clips are compressed, you can't see if you've made a j-cut or an L-cut. It's just not intuitive in that regard."

Are you talking about X?

I find it extremely simple to cut js and ls, and just as easy to see 'em or not using CTRL-S.


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:31:32 pm

Hi Richard,

Yes, I was talking about X. I dislike the way that the audio appears in the timeline when clips are collapsed. There's no visual cue in that mode to let you know of a j or l cut (at least in my experimentation last night).

In addition, I really want to be able to keyframe multi-track audio in clips in the timeline without having to disassemble the audio from the video. I want to be able to j or l specific audio tracks to different lengths. I know it's possible now, but you have to perform a few more steps to get there.

Does anyone know if there's a keyboard shortcut to panning audio left or right?

Visually, I just find the new timeline distracting vs. a well-maintained timeline in 7.



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:32:04 pm

F) If they add it, I would want to turn it off. The viewer, for me, is moot as long as the skim is available. And actually I use a quasi-viewer from time to time. I choose the option to see the clip in 1/2 second intervals.

But it could also be possible I didn't use the viewer efficiently in 7. How did folks use it?


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 7:53:41 pm

[Richard Herd] "How did folks use it?"

Synced to the timeline in Gang mode it is essential for jobs like described in this post: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/4790

Synced to the timeline in Open mode when I need to adjust effects. Lets say the project doesn't require or can't afford real grading, just a touch up with 3-way Color Corrector. Select all video on the timeline, apply 3-way CC, enable Open, switch to 3-way CC control tab, adjust and downarrow through you cut.

Synced to the timeline in Open mode when I need to trim audio, especially ADR.

For match frame and replace (the real one, not FCPX flavor)

For syncing production sound to picture dailies


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:47:39 pm

Have you used the sync function in X? I've only used it a bit, but it's magical.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:45:19 pm

Does it read numbers on the slate in the picture take and the announcement in the sound take? Does it match the frame in the picture take to the clap in the sound take?


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 3:45:51 pm

No.

Conveniently it might sync a bunch of angles to dialogue, though. It's a nice piece of software, a tool, but the editor still has work to do.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:55:15 pm

well, first of all we have a viewer in certain situations when you need them. but i do not miss it all the time since in FCP7 is indeed was "stuck on the last bin-frame" for extended times when editing in the timeline alone. The screens get busy enough enough without the viewer when you have event/bins, clips, scopes, canvas and inspector open.

audio tracks can be made by secondary storylines. if we needed something, then we needed an audio-bus that shows me in the project where the certain roles go to in the audio file before i enter the export window.



Return to posts index

Dustin Parsons
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 7:56:13 pm

I'd say (B) but more than anything I agree with Herb, we should let the editor decide. The problem with Apple's approach to X right now is they think they know how you should work better than you. Maybe Apple is planning on putting in an option to use a Viewer but they didn't want to release the program that way because nobody would give the single viewer a chance and they really want people working that way. However, now that a lot of people have adopted the single viewer style of editing Apple can now, potentially, put in an option to turn on the Viewer and still retain a lot of users who've accepting their new editing paradigm.

Or, who knows... most likely it's their way or the highway.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:08:44 pm

But it wash´t Apple´s idea. There have been others before. Edius has a single-viewer option and I used it there also depending on projects. Yes it was an Option, but I take real estate on my screen over a frozen viewer any time.

What´s nice in Avid are the 4 viewers....I think a modern software should know when we need 2 or 4 and when 1 is enough. Because in X I never really miss the viewer, but when I see a demo of Avid with 4 i see the point in certain situations. I don´t think the editor decides, but the software should understand which tool needs more than 1 viewer.

Pretty much like some tools in FCP (roll, ripple, slip, slide) where you had the "choice" which means you had o press buttons which takes time. In X the software decides depending on your mouse position. Something Avid does also. It is a mix of "deciding and resulting options".


Return to posts index

Ben Starkey
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:36:34 pm

B


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:53:56 pm

[alban egger] "I don´t think the editor decides, but the software should understand which tool needs more than 1 viewer."

I agree. That's why I suspect Multicam is just the first example of what will eventually be contextual implementation. I'm going to guess the ability to Gang will be coming later this year as a result since it's a similar function.

I think we're seeing a "bifurcation" on this as well. There are times when you need two windows of moving video as done in Multicam and would do in Ganging. Then there's Two-Up where you're comparing one window which is dynamic while setting an in or out point and the other is the "frame to compare" reference.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:10:43 pm

[alban egger] "I don´t think the editor decides, but the software should understand which tool needs more than 1 viewer."

[Craig Seeman] "I agree. That's why I suspect Multicam is just the first example of what will eventually be contextual implementation. I'm going to guess the ability to Gang will be coming later this year as a result since it's a similar function."

Sorry guys, it's simply impossible for software to read a user's mind and be right 100% of the time. Even if it's contextually right 90% of the time, that's not good enough for power users. It's better design and far easier to offer choice and let the user decide. Everyone is happier - the user gets what they want and the developer doesn't have to try to be a mind reader. Win-win.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:17:50 pm

[David Lawrence] " It's better design and far easier to offer choice and let the user decide."

Can I hear an Amen brother?

(in unison) Amen!!!

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:58:12 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "b) I'd be pleased"

If it was an option, then great! I don't miss tracks but options are always good.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 10:29:33 pm

B-
Not because it will add in all the lost usefulness, just some of it.
But because it means that there is a chance that editors are actually being listened to, instead of dictated to.
I know this is a novel concept for some. That is, the idea that the users have some input on how the product performs.

I've read the thread, and rather than point by point respond to some of the posts, let me just address (rant) all of it in one shot.
I'm weary of this vocal minority that worship at the alter of apple and ubillos. They act as if they can't possibly make a mistake, or be pressured by market demands to fix this mess.
Since when do we as editors, let engineers and salesmen tell us how it is?
And why is Walter Murch being displeased about all this, the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room that the fanboys don't want to discuss?
I'll tell you why.
Because, as an apple FCP spokesman, undisputed world class authority on editing with everything from Movieola to multiple non linear platforms, and possibly the most respected editor alive today, his dislike for iMove Pro carries a lot of weight on the "it sucks" side of the argument.
Which is a really inconvenient thing for the Movie Hero fans.
A lot more than the guy trying to sell me something, that doesn't actually use it. All the (fanboys) want to do is talk about what Randy, or others that earn a living from selling this and related products have to say. All the people that stand to make a buck from a million noobs jumping on the X bandwagon certainly have a dog in the fight, and can't be trusted to give and unbiased opinion. Their business is selling stuff to new unknowledgeable people. They don't earn a living editing, and they aren't making a lot of money selling training and related services to those with any appreciable amount of seat time. That makes them shills, and I don't really care what they have to say, or how much they like it since they don't have the end user perspective. They have a salesman's perspective.
They would be hurting their own business if they didn't 'like it', or encourage noobs to buy into it. What part of that do the fanboys not get?
And Randy Ubillios is at the top of the stack. All he wants to do is keep grinding out crap for noobs to buy, so his stock and bonus doesn't take a hit. So of course he is going to tout it as some new must have thing. That is what apple does. And if it's a flop, they move on and pretend it didn't happen. That is also what apple does. Apple doesn't care if it devalues the trade, floods the market killing rates, or is an under-performing boat anchor for the pro users. The concern is how much apple-speak the marketing guys can come up with to lure in a million new users into paying for the privilege of being beta testers, and that it is 'good enough'. Apple doesn't care about you, your needs, your business or your clients. Apple cares about money. Their money. Which they should since its in business to sell this stuff, and make some Ducats. In any other context, this is where the crowd would start yapping about greedy corporations...(crickets)
The (fans) must live in a vacuum if they think apple hasn't made huge mistakes before, and can't possibly be making one now. Or they pretend these bombs aren't some major apple cock-up, and dismiss the duds as being "ahead of their time", and the critics as being Luddites, or some other similar lame excuse. And of course there's the B-side of this worn out record called "it will be fixed in the next version". This is very similar to 'future work'. You know, that free work people expect us to do, so that in the bright (and distant) future there will be a big carrot on the end of the string. Future work doesn't pay today's bills, and I can't use features to be included at a later time on today's clients. The entire concept of this being an early version is just more of the same, along these lines. It's as if the NLE was just invented, and we didn't have a previous ten year history of knowing what works, and what people want.
If we were talking about any other multi-billion dollar corporation pulling the crap apple does, everyone would be going apoplectic, sitting in their basement blogging their little fingers off, trying to gin up an occupy Cupertino. But your not. Instead, you side with the billion dollar corporation that yanked the rug out from under some of its most loyal and knowledgeable professional users. It is inexplicable.
However, I wouldn't be so smug as some of the iMovie Pro crowd. Past performance is an excellent predictor of future action. Apple killed Shake, the server, FCS. Seemingly without any thought of how it might impact the customer base. So you can love X all you want, defend it and apple all you want, and keep 'rebuying' stuff you already have instead of standing firm and insisting they fix what you already bought and paid for. But there will be a punishment for rewarding this behavior of treating the customer as a disposable item. History tells us that you too will someday be a victim of the irrational, no notice EOL of your favorite software and hardware that you have based your business on. So I wouldn't get too attached to it if I were you. And I hope your not in the middle of a big gig when it happens.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 3, 2012 at 11:07:23 pm

[Scott Sheriff]
A lot more than the guy trying to sell me something, that doesn't actually use it. All the (fanboys) want to do is talk about what Randy, or others that earn a living from selling this and related products have to say. All the people that stand to make a buck from a million noobs jumping on the X bandwagon certainly have a dog in the fight, and can't be trusted to give and unbiased opinion"


Welcome back, really missed your insulting rants here.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Adam White
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 4, 2012 at 2:29:04 pm

These are still valid questions, and you know what I really hate most of all about FCPX is how divisive it has become. I genuinely hate to see editors tearing into each other over this piece of software. And I find it really distasteful that talented people are being labelled "out of date" and "stuck in the past" because they want a damn viewer back! I mean, seriously, is that really so much to ask and is it really a sign that they need to be put out to pasture?

The whole notion that Apple knows best, that they've seen something lowly editors haven't yet, and that we should all just shut up and learn to love it - I am still deeply uncomfortable with that. I think some people may very well like this new way of working - but others wont and for very legitimate reasons; it has nothing to do with being too attached to the past or not having any vision.

As for the original question, I would be pleased to see these things re-introduced. Along with removing the magnetic timeline (I know, never going to happen), its the kind of design decision that would allow me to reconsider FCPX as a viable option. Adding features back is not the issue for me personally, and whilst I think its great for people using X that Apple are updating it, for me it makes no real difference to my view of the software because those central design decisions I was always unhappy with are unchanged.


Return to posts index

Brad Davis
Re: How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
on Feb 6, 2012 at 10:28:39 pm

B

Not a fan of how the audio is handled in FCP X in general right now. Really cannot use it in my shop because of it.


Return to posts index

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