FORUMS: list search recent posts

Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Mark Raudonis
Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 6:19:46 am

Anyone care to share their experience of cutting multitrack audio with "X"?

Specifically: 4 tracks of isolated audio per video clip. Extra credit if you're using
dual system multitrack audio with 8-24 iso track of audio.

Anybody?

mark



Return to posts index

peter dunphy
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 1:59:08 pm

Hi Mark

This thread by Jim Giberti might be useful:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/18954#18954

Warm regards

Peter

Peter Dunphy

2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 4:58:36 pm

Jim Giberti: In the end I had 12 discrete audio tracks under the primary storyline named, Tara, Izzy, Jackie, VO, Music Bed, Wind, Water, etc. Many of these were composite tracks (the actors takes) where applying master EQ and FX is a one step process, faster than bussing on a physical or GUI console. They stay connected to their primary clips until it's time to buss everything to the master and then they go into their own discrete tracks for FX and bussing to the Master Out


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 3:18:45 pm

Mark,

Okay, my antenna just went up.

Care to share what exactly you're exploring? Have you got a new concept for possibly incorporating X into your workflow that you'd care to share?

Thnx,
DRW

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com
http://www.ProMax.com

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 5:45:35 pm

I've tried, but find it very cumbersome to use. It's almost impossible to edit in the multi cam mode this way, as I'm sure you know. For now, I have avoided bringing those types of edits into X. You basically have to edit and mix the audio before ever cutting any picture and that's completely unrealistic.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 6:09:03 pm

Or you have to keep "opening in timeline" to mix the separate tracks, but you then lose context of the rest of the edit.

It is also kind of impractical to detach and then break apart, as the lack of sync indicators won't let you know when something has gone awry.

Of course, the solution is then to make a compound of all of that, and keep breaking apart and compounding if you need to stay within the context of the timeline. This seems a bit unnecessary.

Multitrack audio editing is the worst part of FCPX at the moment for me.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 6:22:03 pm

Sadly I think this is yet another thing they rushed out before it was ready because it would sound sexy and professional to a wider audience who don't really need multicam but like to think that it's there.

I can't imagine any of the users who were desperately waiting for multicam in order to be able to start editing in FCPX are that thrilled by the way it's actually turned out so far. It's not really usable in this form for most purposes other than maybe music promos.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 6:38:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Multitrack audio editing is the worst part of FCPX at the moment for me."

Agreed. And I think it really demonstrates the limitations of the FCPX timeline paradigm. Very curious to see how they fix it.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 6:48:39 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Jeremy Garchow] "Multitrack audio editing is the worst part of FCPX at the moment for me."

Agreed. And I think it really demonstrates the limitations of the FCPX timeline paradigm. Very curious to see how they fix it."


One of the lovely things in 7 is that timecode overlay that has color-matching for multitrack sync. A simple thing, but a pain to lose. Also the combustibility of the tracks--the ease with which they break apart and can be slipped, but with the ever-present sync marks to let you know how far you've gone afield when sliding whalla, duplicating room noise, or edging the pop from a pistol a frame or two forward.


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 6:56:11 pm

[Chris Harlan] "
One of the lovely things in 7 is that timecode overlay that has color-matching for multitrack sync. A simple thing, but a pain to lose."


Couldn't agree more. This was an absolutely brilliant idea that was so useful so much of the time - Media Composer's timecode viewing options still feel so primitive by comparison. And FCPX is a very long way from getting back to this feature.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 6:56:05 pm

[David Lawrence] "Agreed. And I think it really demonstrates the limitations of the FCPX timeline paradigm. "

No, I think that it just isn't implemented yet, or maybe they are waiting to hear feedback, or perhaps they just don't care. I don't know.

If you could expand audio like you can now, except it showed all of the tracks instead of just one fake compound of the tracks, it'd be much better.

It's like the capability is already there, it's just not turned on.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 7:46:57 pm

So I've been asked to film a workshop on Monday which includes 2 cameras filming 6 different speakers during the day.

Is this fairly simple set up going to be a doddle with the FCPX multicam facility?

Once the 2 cameras are synced up what do I need to watch out for in the edit?

This must be the most basic implementation of multicam - a good place to start for me.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 7:51:19 pm

[Mark Dobson] "So I've been asked to film a workshop on Monday which includes 2 cameras filming 6 different speakers during the day."

This will likely be an easy and pleasant m-cam cut in X. Figure out your audio issues first. If it's just speaker audio direct to camera without any combination of isolated mics, then you should be fine.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 7:54:23 pm

Wait-

Are we talking about multicam or multitrack audio?

Apologies if we are talking about multicam. I misinterpreted if that's the case.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 8:00:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Are we talking about multicam or multitrack audio?"

Both. I think Mark R asked about multi-track sources, whereas Mark D just asked about multicam edits. The issue gets convoluted because the multi-track audio workarounds, like "break apart" and "detach" are not available in the multi cam mode.

This means that if you do something very simple, like document an event with 2 or more cameras and a multi-channel audio recorder, like Sound Devices (or even splitting out the various mics to individual tracks on each camera), it becomes a nearly-impossible working scenario in X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 8:18:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This means that if you do something very simple, like document an event with 2 or more cameras and a multi-channel audio recorder, like Sound Devices (or even splitting out the various mics to individual tracks on each camera), it becomes a nearly-impossible working scenario in X."

Yep. I hear that, unless you match frame back and add it separately, but that's a goofy workaround at best.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 11:43:37 pm

[Oliver Peters] "or even splitting out the various mics to individual tracks on each camera), it becomes a nearly-impossible working scenario in X."

Well that's good to know since that's my exact workflow 90% of the time. This was one of my fears about working with X, apparently now confirmed. Oh well.

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


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 6:52:27 am

[Oliver Peters] "This will likely be an easy and pleasant m-cam cut in X. Figure out your audio issues first. If it's just speaker audio direct to camera without any combination of isolated mics, then you should be fine."

sorry, did I mistake this thread and for slow response - UK time - We are using 2 XF305s My plan is to have a wireless mike on the speaker - or get the sound engineer to take a feed from the PA desk - and feed the clean signal to one of the 2 cameras - the other camera will pick up reference sound with its on board mike.

Wasn't quite sure what you meant by isolated mics.

I'll be using this job to get started with FCPX multi cam and will do a dry run tomorrow.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 12:23:34 pm

"sorry, did I mistake this thread and for slow response - UK time - We are using 2 XF305s My plan is to have a wireless mike on the speaker - or get the sound engineer to take a feed from the PA desk - and feed the clean signal to one of the 2 cameras - the other camera will pick up reference sound with its on board mike"

Thanks for the clarification. Your initial question didn't point this out. You should do well with FCP X based in the description. Lately, it's been common to shoot with a couple of DSLRs and a separate sound recorder and sync the 3. In many cases, when multiple speakers are involved, the individual microphone feeds will be recorded onto separate tracks of a multichannel audio recorder ("iso" mics) instead of a mixed feed. That's where the editorial issues come up. In your case, with a mixed feed from the board, it should be no problem at all.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 1:11:20 pm

[Oliver Peters] "You should do well with FCP X based in the description. Lately, it's been common to shoot with a couple of DSLRs and a separate sound recorder and sync the 3"

Well - I'll create a post describing my experience once I've finished editing the job. 3 Cameras filming a whole days workshop!

Not going to be fun to edit.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 1:33:42 pm

[Mark Dobson] "Not going to be fun to edit."

They never are!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 10:47:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you could expand audio like you can now, except it showed all of the tracks instead of just one fake compound of the tracks, it'd be much better.

It's like the capability is already there, it's just not turned on."


I thought tracks were so last century ;)

Agree fully exposing all channels would help, but it doesn't solve the problem of everything having to be in relation to the single Primary. What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else? With track-based systems, this is a given. In FCPX, the current workaround is spiking Secondaries to frame 1 of the Primary. It works but I think it's pretty weak.

I'd like to see a solution that doesn't feel like an afterthought. Ideally, the model would be so good that it could be generalized for any type of time-based editorial system. It's funny, I've asked several times in the forum if folks would like a DAW that had a timeline like in FCPX. I've never gotten an answer. I think that says something...

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 10:58:05 pm

[David Lawrence] "I thought tracks were so last century ;)"

Audio tracks, not Audio Tracks! :) I mean if I have 8 channels of audio, I need to be able to manipulate them in context. The way it is now with opening in a timeline, or breaking them apart just to stick them back together is too limiting.

[David Lawrence] "What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else?"

Put it in the primary storyline.


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 10:58:24 pm

[David Lawrence] "I've asked several times in the forum if folks would like a DAW that had a timeline like in FCPX. I've never gotten an answer."

I think tracks are inherent in DAW's for a very good reason: track based effects and sends. I'm not sure how you would accomplish this in a 'trackless' paradigm.

Chris


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 11:07:05 pm

[Chris Conlee] "I think tracks are inherent in DAW's for a very good reason: track based effects and sends. I'm not sure how you would accomplish this in a 'trackless' paradigm."

Some might suggest that Roles could serve this function.


Jeremy


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 11:14:26 pm

[David Lawrence] "I've asked several times in the forum if folks would like a DAW that had a timeline like in FCPX. I've never gotten an answer."

The answer is emphatically no.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 11:15:55 pm

[Chris Conlee] "I think tracks are inherent in DAW's for a very good reason: track based effects and sends. I'm not sure how you would accomplish this in a 'trackless' paradigm."

Agree, although I actually think that's an example of something roles can probably handle well.

I'm thinking more along the lines of how tracks work in the context of music recording. Time is a fixed, external frame-of-reference for each track. The composer/producer creates their composition by placing beats/instruments/notes/sounds, etc. in this fixed frame. Many film/video editors work this way too.

When Walter Murch was interviewed a few months ago, one of the things he said about the FCPX timeline was "Well, I can't make music with it..." This was before he had time to really play with it. I'm curious what he thinks of it today.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 11:36:12 pm

[Chris Conlee] "I think tracks are inherent in DAW's for a very good reason: track based effects and sends. I'm not sure how you would accomplish this in a 'trackless' paradigm."

[DL] Agree, although I actually think that's an example of something roles can probably handle well.

In an audio DAW like Fairlight there is clip based level, plugins and EQ. Then there is the track based dynamic levels, EQ and plugin processing. Then there is the sub bus level where all music or dialog premix comes and there is again bus based dynamic level, EQ and plugin processing. The there is the ability to route those sub buses to other tracks to record the pre fade levels (undipped stems), Then the post fade stems can be routed to a master bus where again dynamic levels, EQ and plugins can be applied. So there are so many potential layers designed to give control and also create simultaneous deliverables. Meanwhile any track can be sent to an auxiliary bus that just applies processing like reverb. Those aux sends have routable returns that can change under automation to return to any sub bus or master bus. Aux send levels can be pre or post fader.

Until they have roles within roles, independent sub roles and a mix panel that allows extensive automatable control of all those parameters, then I do not see roles as being any where near as comprehensive as a track based bus assignable DAW can be.

I don't think many picture editors have any idea of the complexity and power of how DAWs route, assign and control audio. A trackless roles based editor cannot come close to this complexity without being a nightmare to drive.


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 1:30:16 am

[Michael Gissing] "I don't think many picture editors have any idea of the complexity and power of how DAWs route, assign and control audio."

Amen. Have just recently been learning Pro Tools, and the ability to route anything to ANYWHERE, or multiple places at the same time, is amazing. Truly an astounding amount of control and configurability. In fact, I've been thinking over the past couple of months just how simple NLEs are compared to most professional DAWs.

Chris


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 2:36:29 am

[Michael Gissing] "I don't think many picture editors have any idea of the complexity and power of how DAWs route, assign and control audio. A trackless roles based editor cannot come close to this complexity without being a nightmare to drive."

Yep, all absolutely true. Wasn't thinking routing which tracks do exceptionally well.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 11:06:21 pm

[David Lawrence] " It's funny, I've asked several times in the forum if folks would like a DAW that had a timeline like in FCPX. I've never gotten an answer. I think that says something..."

I forgot to answer this one. I think it's silly to compare a daw to an nle, even though they might share some.

They are different tools for different jobs.

I send FCP7 timelines to AE all the time with Automatic Duck (RIP), and the timelines look and operate completely differently, but I don't complain. I don't need AE to work like an NLE, and I am sure there are people who would say I don't need my DAW to work like a video editing program.

If you need tracks to operate like tracks in an NLE, then FCPX isn't currently there yet, and it might never be. I could care less if tracks come back or not, but at least give me multi-channel audio control/or the sync markers to track my broken apart clips.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 3:30:32 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I forgot to answer this one. I think it's silly to compare a daw to an nle, even though they might share some.

They are different tools for different jobs. "


Have to disagree, not silly at all.

Yes they're different tools for different jobs, but only in the sense that each is optimized for its respective media type and I/O needs. They're both share a common interaction language and a common visual model for representing time-based media in space.

The reason I keep bringing up audio and DAWs is because if Apple's trackless paradigm is truly the revolutionary improvement that they claim, then it should work as a general solution for all time-based media. This has been my core argument from day one of the FCPX release.

By eliminating tracks, Apple changed something that wasn't broken. The problem they solved wasn't a problem for anyone skilled in the craft. The convenience their design affords is minor compared to the problems they've created for anyone who uses an NLE as a general purpose time-based editorial environment. Not to mention the interchange issues that are still getting worked out.

Nowhere do we see this more clearly than with audio. With muti-track audio, the idea of a single Primary track that all other tracks must relate to makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on your editing style and how you compose with multiple video channels in the context of posting a show, a single Primary may be just as meaningless.

[David Lawrence] ""What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else"

[Jeremy Garchow] "Put it in the primary storyline."

So 24 audio tracks in the Primary storyline and everything else connected to that? Doesn't that seem a bit forced? You still only have one true track in FCPX. I think that's the root of the problems with audio.

If the Magnetic Timeline wouldn't work for a DAW as well as tracks, then is it really as flexible and revolutionary Apple wants us to believe? Aside from complex routing as Michael Gissing points out, the other thing DAWs excel at is audio editing. I can't imagine an audio editor would be happy with tracks affecting all other track timings by default or requiring elaborate workarounds to keep things locked to an absolute time reference.

I understand that many folks enjoy and are comfortable with FCPX's trackless approach. I think that's cool. But if we want to have a real understanding of the paradigm, I think we have to examine it in the context of the universal interface language that has been the standard for representing time-based digital media for decades. If Apple thinks they've invented something better, let's see it how it works better for multitrack audio.

I'm with Mark Raudonis:

[Mark Raudonis] "Music video cutting against a single, unedited audio track.... OK. Nice trick. Now let's see the tool used to cut a multicam scene with 12 iso trks of dialogue. That's a demo that I'd like to see."

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 6:20:35 am

[David Lawrence] "The reason I keep bringing up audio and DAWs is because if Apple's trackless paradigm is truly the revolutionary improvement that they claim, then it should work as a general solution for all time-based media. This has been my core argument from day one of the FCPX release.

By eliminating tracks, Apple changed something that wasn't broken. The problem they solved wasn't a problem for anyone skilled in the craft. The convenience their design affords is minor compared to the problems they've created for anyone who uses an NLE as a general purpose time-based editorial environment. Not to mention the interchange issues that are still getting worked out."


But David, I would challenge you on the concept that Apple "eliminated" tracks. They did nothing of the kind, unless you define "tracks" as "how tracks operated in Legacy."

The moment you import a digital asset into X, you essentially create a TRACK. That track persists and relates to the "tracks" you create above and below it just fine. The real difference is that these tracks aren't persistently and necessarily "pinned to zero" as they were in Legacy. But you can't actually argue that the aren't there - because when if you look at any X timeline that has content - you can see them as easily as you can in Legacy.

I also firmly disagree with your contention that their convenience is marginal. I find it tremendously powerful and efficient to be able to assemble a stack of assets, and simply drag and drop that assembly around in time is literally orders of magnitude more sensible to me than being stuck in a world where every box in every stack in the warehouse of my timeline is always a discrete element that can be pushed out of time alignment by actions taken outside of the visual space I might be working in.

We've all had to restrict our thinking to this reality in the history of NLE design - the "what I do over here can break what I've already done down there that I can no longer see" and we've come to accept it and accommodate it - but honestly, it's fundamentally crappy design to have a system where changes in one place can mess up previous decisions in another that you are no longer looking at. It's something we've mentally had to learn to "anticipate" through rote learning. But it's bad design. Period.

I actually LOVE not having an arbitrary "Zero" point like in Legacy. I can't work the middle first, go back and do my titles later, Swap the back and front with the middle, and drag stuff around just to "see how it feels" with a freedom I never had before. ANd that freedom persists no matter HOW complex my timeline becomes. That's no less than liberating to my mind.

I know it's instinctively hard to change long set thinking about how an arrangement of virtual assets in time must behave. But some of us like the new system much, much better than the old.

I don't even THINK about editing the way I used to. I like the freedom of knowing that the "stack" I created over there - will ALWAYS be there when I come back to that section, with all the clip timing and relationship decisions preserved, no matter what I change before or after it.

You appear to largely see X in terms of what you feel you've been forced to give up.

I largely see it in terms of the benefits of what I have now, that I didn't have before.

I understand that these differences are based primarily on the kind of work we do and what we need most in our specific editing workflows, but you have half a dozen programs that do things YOUR way.

And I have ONE that's shown me a different way that works better for me.

So sorry, but I'll fight not to have to do what I consider to be "going backwards" to accommodate people who want X to be "more like" the tools we had for decades.

Working the way I've worked for 15 years as an editor, I'm significantly more productive in X than I ever was in Legacy. I'm getting more done faster, and since I "mentally migrated" to X, I've seen a massive increase in my billings. Attracting that work hasn't been based on the software, but the software HAS allowed me to cut and finish work signifacantly FASTER than Legacy allowed, primarily because of the render issues, but also because the whole program just seems somehow more efficient to me.

So I'm just not sympathetic to your view. I think every day more and more general editors will discover the "point" of X.

If you never do, that's fine. It's likely because it's NOT a good tool for the way you think and work.

But it's an excellent one for the way I do.

Simple as that.

BTW, sorry to go off topic in this. It's not about multi-track audio, per se - but then, neither was David's post, so hopefully it's fair game to respond directly to is assertions.

"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: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 7:14:26 am

[Bill Davis] "it's fundamentally crappy design to have a system where changes in one place can mess up previous decisions in another that you are no longer looking at. It's something we've mentally had to learn to "anticipate" through rote learning. But it's bad design. Period."

Only if you don't know what you are doing.


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 7:35:09 am

Not judging FCPX- which I haven't used yet so can't comment on how successful magnetic is- but there is a simpler solution to this "problem" than chucking tracks entirely. Why not just implement a tracks locked ripple mode?

When I'm working fast and lazy and haven't been tying my footage together properly I just work in tracks locked ripple mode so all tracks on the time line shift and move around together when I make changes in the same way I imagine they do in X. It's not something I use often but it's a simple solution to the problem if you struggle with pieces of your timeline shifting out of sync.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 12:04:55 am

[David Lawrence] "Yes they're different tools for different jobs, but only in the sense that each is optimized for its respective media type and I/O needs. They're both share a common interaction language and a common visual model for representing time-based media in space."

Mmm kinda, but they are different.

They are two different tools.

[David Lawrence] "The reason I keep bringing up audio and DAWs is because if Apple's trackless paradigm is truly the revolutionary improvement that they claim, then it should work as a general solution for all time-based media. This has been my core argument from day one of the FCPX release."

I just don't think this is true. Maybe it is for you, but it's not for me. Not every media application has to have the exact same structure, and a lot of them don't, my example of moving from FCP7 to AE is a good example. FCP7 works differently from Premiere which works differently from Avid. yes, they have tracks, but the audio and interaction of the clips on those tracks are different. FCPX is just radically different. I think the problem you are having is that this hasn't been attempted before (although Michael Gissing sad something about Fairlight having some sort of selectable magnetic mode, fact check me on that Michael). It's new, it doesn't mean it's quite right yet, but it doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean that it has to the end all be all of every NLE or DAW or compositing application, ever. It's a choice that you have to make as to whether you like it or not. It is using data to form relationships and opinions, things to keep and things to take away. This is certainly different. It is fine if people don't like it. It's fine if they do like it.

[David Lawrence] "By eliminating tracks, Apple changed something that wasn't broken. The problem they solved wasn't a problem for anyone skilled in the craft. The convenience their design affords is minor compared to the problems they've created for anyone who uses an NLE as a general purpose time-based editorial environment. Not to mention the interchange issues that are still getting worked out."

Why do you think they were trying to solve a problem, instead of simply presenting a new interface? Don't you think they know that the interface they are presenting has some issues and creates some different problems? They also have things that are done fantastically better in X vs 7. Since FCPX is underdeveloped at this point, it might not make a bunch of sense presently, but maybe they can see the end game?

[David Lawrence] "Nowhere do we see this more clearly than with audio. With muti-track audio, the idea of a single Primary track that all other tracks must relate to makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on your editing style and how you compose with multiple video channels in the context of posting a show, a single Primary may be just as meaningless."

Maybe for you, maybe it makes perfect sense to other people, and those people might have experience. It's not the magnetism that's the problem as you can easily control what shifts time in FCPX, it's the connections that you have the most trouble with.

[David Lawrence] "So 24 audio tracks in the Primary storyline and everything else connected to that? Doesn't that seem a bit forced? You still only have one true track in FCPX. I think that's the root of the problems with audio."

Why do all 24 tracks have to be in the primary storyline? The primary storyline drives the time of your piece. it's really that easy.

The root of the problems with audio is a programming one. You can easily edit more than one channel of audio in FCPX if you keep drilling down to the most basic clip level. They problem is is that you lose the context of the edit. If they would just program the channels to show up when you expand a clip, this problem would be much better solved as detaching the audio isn't always a good solution and sometimes the wrong solution if the clip you are detaching from is not in the primary. You must use a compound clip to get around that wrong solution today. So, you explode the audio out by breaking apart, make your selections, then compound. Over and over. Not the best, but it keeps everything as it's required. It will take some more programming to get that to work a bit more elegantly, but you can see the basic functionality is there.

It's like when Bill Davis said that relinking might never be possible in FCPX, but a few days later it showed up. The capability was already in the program (by changing the prefs you could link to all new high or low resolution media). There's no second viewier in FCPX, but it just showed up with multicam. this suggests that an Event based Viewer is already in there, all Apple has to do is turn it on, and with enough feedback, I bet they will.

Speaking of feedback the very first feature of the FCPX feedback page is "audio editing", and that list is not quite alphabetical. They are listening, and what that says to me is that they want suggestions.

[David Lawrence] "If the Magnetic Timeline wouldn't work for a DAW as well as tracks, then is it really as flexible and revolutionary Apple wants us to believe? "

A track is a container and nothing more. Data can also be a container.

Roles could easily serve as a function of tracks in an NLE, but it doesn't necessarily have to replace them in a DAW. Michael laid that out pretty concisely I might add. FCPX just needs some more time on the programming level.

[David Lawrence] "I can't imagine an audio editor would be happy with tracks affecting all other track timings by default or requiring elaborate workarounds to keep things locked to an absolute time reference."

No question, the relationships of clips have changed in X. What you propose is completely doable. Is it a work around or how it works? X does not work like a track based editor at this point in time, and as soon as that is embraced and one learns how it does work, you start to work that way, just like tracks. Is it better? For some, but not others, just like Avid is better for some and not others. I don't know if track based editing is a universal truth, but it is something that we are all certainly used to. People may not agree with X's functions, and I will be the first to admit it needs some more work, but I also see it as a work in progress instead of complete.

[David Lawrence] "I'm with Mark Raudonis:

[Mark Raudonis] "Music video cutting against a single, unedited audio track.... OK. Nice trick. Now let's see the tool used to cut a multicam scene with 12 iso trks of dialogue. That's a demo that I'd like to see.""


I think the best way to do this today, is to cut the broken apart audio separately below the multicam switch. It's not ideal, at all.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 4:38:00 am

Jeremy, dSP and Fairlight are two DAWs that allow clips to stack non destructively on a track. It is an alternate approach to magnetic timeline as you don't overwrite a clip on a track as it simply stacks on top.You can get to the clips underneath.

They certainly don't use magnetic timeline ala FCPX but solve the problem of accidental destructive overwrite in a different and more useful way. There is also a big advantage of stacking clips on a single track of being able to crossfade to the layer below in the same way you can dissolve from V2 to V1 with vision. So each track becomes multi dimensional. For editing dialog and music this is the most powerful and fast system I have seen. When moving a clip it shows an outline waveform with the next layer below's waveform also displayed. So fast to match music beats to incredible sub frame accuracy.

I don't know of any audio system with a magnetic timeline. Can't see it being of any use given the need for tracks and fixed placement due to the need to route within a mix environment. I am utterly sceptical that Roles can ever reach the level that track based mix routing can achieve and even less confident that it would be as elegant and accessible if they even came close.

Happy to be proven wrong as well but I do side with David's view that this is a change for change sake rather than looking at a superior paradigm. It feels like a corner that they have painted themselves into.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 6:51:38 am

[Michael Gissing] "It is an alternate approach to magnetic timeline as you don't overwrite a clip on a track as it simply stacks on top."

That's it. Thanks for that.

Audio editing and performance tools have always been ahead of video, in my opinion. Mostly because of bandwidth, but even in interaction and interface.

A musician buddy of mine used to use digital performer, then he moved to ableton live. Watching him work reduced me to fits of jealousy. The amount of real time, real interaction and feedback, the amount of realtime creativity and decision making was extremely revealing. Live, although more of a sequencer rather than daw, doesn't need tracks either, but they are there when you need them. It's sequenced layers, really.

Fcpx, while a completely different tool and methodology, and not at all complete or useful for every situation, brings a new level of interaction with video. The ability to reorder, move, preview, change names, apply information in large quantities, operate and adjust parameters in a modicum of real time is pretty sweet.

Yes, there are huge workflow holes, and some things simply don't add up, but it is a potential way forward even if a little bit or control has been lost in the short term.

[Michael Gissing] "I am utterly sceptical that Roles can ever reach the level that track based mix routing can achieve and even less confident that it would be as elegant and accessible if they even came close."

And that's why a DAW is not an NLE and vice versa. They are different tools for different jobs. You know all of this, but, video requires compositing, audio's compositing is completely different. Usually, my job is to hand you the audio engineer the sequence audio in a relatively organized manner.

Stacking video clips on top of each other on the same track and dissolving one to the other isn't really needed as layer order is more important in video because unlike audio, there's actual physical interactions required. A bug that needs to stay on top, needs to be on top, usually.

I'm also fairly certain Protools can layer audio over each other on the same track. It's how an audio engineer I use a lot records VO/narration. The first time I asked him if it was recording over itself as that's what it looked like it on the monitor. He assured me it was all good. ;)

Fcpx's audio control is very limited at this time, it is overly simplistic. Roles do work, and i could envision them working for a type of bussing, of course not with the control of a DAW, but an NLE is not a DAW. An interface would have to be built. Not sure if Apple would ever go that far, but who knows.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 6:35:17 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "And that's why a DAW is not an NLE and vice versa. They are different tools for different jobs."

Obviously. I don't think anyone's claiming otherwise. My point is when you strip away specialized features, at a very basic level, they share a common visual and interaction language. This is easy to see with multitrack audio.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why do you think they were trying to solve a problem, instead of simply presenting a new interface? Don't you think they know that the interface they are presenting has some issues and creates some different problems? "

Because Apple tells us so:

"Edit without clip collisions or sync problems... Assemble shots with ease as clips "magnetically close up to eliminate unwanted black gaps on the timeline."

Clip collisions, sync and black gaps -- those are the specific problems Apple says they've fixed with their new timeline paradigm. Funny thing is, I've never heard any skilled editor complain about these issues. If you know what you're doing, they're simply not a problem.

I have no idea what Apple thinks about any new problems with their timeline UI. They have their own agenda and they're not saying. We know they're getting feedback so it'll be interesting to see what they decide to do. But I'm not betting on any radical change.

[Jeremy Garchow] " It's not the magnetism that's the problem as you can easily control what shifts time in FCPX, it's the connections that you have the most trouble with."

It's actually not the connections though that's a part of it. It's temporal frame-of-reference. FCPX forces everything to be in relation to a single track. If that works for you, great. But remember, with 99 fully independent, assignable audio tracks, FCP 7 was one of the most flexible NLEs on the market for editors who do complex editorial work with audio. How does Apple restore that level of flexibility to FCPX?

Tracks do more than just bussing. That's why I asked:

[David Lawrence] "What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else? With track-based systems, this is a given. In FCPX, the current workaround is spiking Secondaries to frame 1 of the Primary. It works but I think it's pretty weak."

I didn't understand your answer:

[Jeremy Garchow] "Put it in the primary storyline."

How does that help with multitrack audio? Each iso track would need its own Primary to be completely independent. I don't see how you can do it with just one.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 5:08:33 pm

[David Lawrence] "My point is when you strip away specialized features, at a very basic level, they share a common visual and interaction language. This is easy to see with multitrack audio."

But they don't operate the same way. Michael Gissing (again) laid that out pretty concisely. yes, they have tracks. A1 = A1, but in my experience with audio post, A1 doesn't necessarily stay A1, or gets rearranged. My job is to get my intent over to audio post, just like it's my job to get the intent over to color or a compositing app. Once in that app, the rules change.

[David Lawrence] "Clip collisions, sync and black gaps -- those are the specific problems Apple says they've fixed with their new timeline paradigm. "

Clip collisions are simply annoying in FCP7. You can't overwrite certain things when I want to, you can't trim a clip over another clip with the keyboard if I don't want to. Just yesterday I was having sync problems with a mixed multicam sequence where any time I would shift-delete, the multicam sync would come undone for no reason. So yes, there are real problems. FCP7 has some rules as well, and I don't know if I'm a skilled editor or not, but there's a lot of fighting the interface sometimes. it doesn't allow me to do what I want to do. Now, I know all of this and working around it has become second nature. FCPX presents a different way of working, and it also has rules, mainly the primary storyline = time.

As far as the gaps in FCP7, yeah, I don't see those as a problem, but the magnetic timeline works with them differently. I don't mind it. They are now a tool of intent and actually allow more control and they are easier to use. You can slide a whole timeline by an exact number of frames/seconds/whatever simply by trimming the gap, instead of selecting everything to the right and left.

[David Lawrence] "But I'm not betting on any radical change."

If you had already bet on radical change you'd be a winner! ;)

[David Lawrence] "It's actually not the connections though that's a part of it. It's temporal frame-of-reference. FCPX forces everything to be in relation to a single track. If that works for you, great. But remember, with 99 fully independent, assignable audio tracks, FCP 7 was one of the most flexible NLEs on the market for editors who do complex editorial work with audio. How does Apple restore that level of flexibility to FCPX?"

I think we need to start working in real world examples. Are you saying that you couldn't have 99 clips of audio stacked in FCPX? And that you can't "assign" those clips to an output? I would say you can. That single track, is time, just like the 99 tracks that you need have a relationship to time.

There's no question that multichannel audio editing in FCPX needs work. I am not disputing that.

[David Lawrence] "[David Lawrence] "What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else? With track-based systems, this is a given. In FCPX, the current workaround is spiking Secondaries to frame 1 of the Primary. It works but I think it's pretty weak."

I didn't understand your answer:

[Jeremy Garchow] "Put it in the primary storyline.""


Time. You said a time reference. If audio is the time reference, it should go in the primary storyline. In there, it is completely independent of everything else. You seem to think that video is what needs to be in the primary, and that's not always the case.

[David Lawrence] "How does that help with multitrack audio? Each iso track would need its own Primary to be completely independent. I don't see how you can do it with just one."

Whatever is driving the time is what goes in the primary.


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 5:32:50 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " You can slide a whole timeline by an exact number of frames/seconds/whatever simply by trimming the gap, instead of selecting everything to the right and left."

This is revolutionary...oh, wait...Avid's been doing that for 2 decades.

Chris


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 5:40:47 pm

[Chris Conlee] "This is revolutionary...oh, wait...Avid's been doing that for 2 decades."

Sorry, I thought we comparing FCPX to FCP7.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 8:56:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "in my experience with audio post, A1 doesn't necessarily stay A1, or gets rearranged. My job is to get my intent over to audio post, just like it's my job to get the intent over to color or a compositing app. Once in that app, the rules change."

I get where you're coming from. But there are many collaborative workflows where everyone agrees what A1 is and it stays that way through the pipeline. Maybe roles will evolve to the point where this doesn't matter. But I also think shared visual mapping will always be very important for many collaborative workflows.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think we need to start working in real world examples. Are you saying that you couldn't have 99 clips of audio stacked in FCPX? And that you can't "assign" those clips to an output?"

No, I'm sure you can do all of that.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Time. You said a time reference. If audio is the time reference, it should go in the primary storyline. In there, it is completely independent of everything else. You seem to think that video is what needs to be in the primary, and that's not always the case."

[Jeremy Garchow] "Whatever is driving the time is what goes in the primary."

No, I get that you can put either audio or video in the Primary. Maybe I'm not being clear. Let me try again.

What if you need time itself to be the fixed external frame-of-reference? Forget about tracks. media could be layers, or channels or blobs or whatnot. What if you want to compose media events simply in relation to time itself, not a preselected media asset in a constantly shifting container? The UI standard for time is the window space. Time is external. Any asset in the window is independently mapped directly to time via its position in space. Multitrack is a nature extension of this paradigm.

I get that the X paradigm is different. I question the value and the limits of the difference.

Look at the new multicam Angle Editor. Note the frame-of-reference. Why did they design it that way?

Getting back to audio, here's a simple multitrack example:

Four completely separate audio tracks -- drums, bass, guitar, vocals. Which one goes in the Primary?

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


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 9:28:27 pm

[David Lawrence] "...here's a simple multitrack example:
Four completely separate audio tracks -- drums, bass, guitar, vocals. Which one goes in the Primary?
"

Hi
The click track playing in the drummers headphones, which momentarily he won't necessarily stick to, but the others will follow him.
Or the conductor's baton - which he's most likely synced up crochet-equals-60 to a video of a looped seconds leader or T/C readout superimposed over the video he can see on a monitor.

To take real world examples of music sessions for video production... ;-)



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 9:30:02 pm

[David Lawrence] "Look at the new multicam Angle Editor. Note the frame-of-reference. Why did they design it that way?"

Can you elaborate on this, I haven't tried it out yet.

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: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 9:55:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Can you elaborate on this, I haven't tried it out yet."

I haven't either. I'm judging from the picture of the UI:



It appears that each angle gets its own independent "track". This makes sense given what you would be doing with the tool. Anyone who's actually used it -- please let me know if this is correct or not.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 10:23:52 pm

[David Lawrence] "It appears that each angle gets its own independent "track". This makes sense given what you would be doing with the tool. Anyone who's actually used it -- please let me know if this is correct or not."

Each angle gets an Angle. That Angle corresponds to an angle number in the Angle Viewer.

In FCP7, you couldn't have holes in an angle without a bunch of workaround. This allows multiple takes with starts and stops on each angle.

Also, although they don't show up and it doesn't look like it, the angle is fixed in time similar to having a gap. You must choose the position tool to move/slide a clip, the arrow tool won't work.

if you have tc on your clips, the clips get locked to tc, and the multi clip starts with the tc of the first clip and all clips follow that tc.

It works pretty well for video. Multichannel audio sucks as you can't break it apart or do anything with it, it must be added separately, then broken apart, which is a pain.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 10:44:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Each angle gets an Angle. That Angle corresponds to an angle number in the Angle Viewer."

[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, although they don't show up and it doesn't look like it, the angle is fixed in time similar to having a gap. You must choose the position tool to move/slide a clip, the arrow tool won't work."

Yes. That's my point. They're independently fixed in time. Even though they get automatically synched via timecode or sound, you have the option of adjusting any angle manually without affecting the others.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 11:12:22 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yes. That's my point. They're independently fixed in time. Even though they get automatically synched via timecode or sound, you have the option of adjusting any angle manually without affecting the others."

I see what you're saying. Yes. That is true. But it is even more limited than the FCPX Project in terms of audio.

The way that the Angles are setup would not be a good way to edit. Although, you can select what is called the "monitoring" angle, and that angle becomes a target. So any other clip that you add, will get added to that angle (all the X editing convert ions apply in terms of insert/overwrite/etc in the primary. I know I have said it before, but this target system should get picked up for secondary clips/storylines so we can edit right in to them or on them.

It is not the magnetic timeline that bothers you, it is the connections!

What is needed is a modifier so that if you adjust a primary track (trim/roll/whatever), the secondary clips does not move along with it. The work round now is to move the primary clip out of the primary and adjust, then move it back in. I have sent this to feedback before. The more people that send it, the more likely it will get enabled.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 20, 2012 at 7:53:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It is not the magnetic timeline that bothers you, it is the connections!"

Connections are a big part of it but there's other stuff as well ;)

[Jeremy Garchow] "What is needed is a modifier so that if you adjust a primary track (trim/roll/whatever), the secondary clips does not move along with it. The work round now is to move the primary clip out of the primary and adjust, then move it back in. I have sent this to feedback before. The more people that send it, the more likely it will get enabled."

That would help. Of course, once we add this plus selective targeting, the behavior starts getting more and more track-like.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess it's how you define that relationship. Everything in FCPX relates to that primary storyline of time. Anything in the primary is fixed to time if you want it to be. Anything connected to that will also be fixed to that point in the clip. It changes the relationship of clips. If I know something has to hit at a certain time in the sequence, then it goes in the primary at that time, and I edit around it accordingly"

[Jeremy Garchow] "The one you want to determine time, and the rest is connected. Let's say it's drums. You put the drums in the primary, and everything else stays in relation to the drum, if you want to change the relationship, you move it, just like in FCP7. Or if the relationship between those elements is fixed, you have to compound them all, then you can move them very easily in time together."

OK, but again, having to pick a single track as the master frame-of-reference is an arbitrary limitation. There's a reason you don't see DAWs or sequencers work this way. Any instrument you choose will be wrong at some point.

Is the single primary limit really the thing that drives editorial efficiency in FCPX? With a little creativity, track-based systems could also incorporate most or maybe all of the things you like about the magnetic timeline.

For example, Premiere Pro has a nice clip grouping function (something FCP legacy sorely lacks). What if you could hold down a modifier key and when you move a group, instead of overwriting adjacent clips, they'd move out of the way? Maybe the track could expand vertically and they could jump into a space above. Hold down another modifier and move any individual object in the group. Then add a toggle on the timeline for ripple. Leave it on if you like to working that way. Then add metadata for clip selection, etc.

Lots of possibilities for the best of all worlds in FCPX, assuming Apple wants to expand the model. Multiple primaries would be a great start. Their solution to the multitrack audio problem will tell us a lot.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 20, 2012 at 3:42:48 pm

[David Lawrence] "Their solution to the multitrack audio problem will tell us a lot."

Do you think they perceive of that as a problem? I would hope they do, but I feel far from certain that they see things that way.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 20, 2012 at 5:21:57 pm

[David Lawrence] "That would help. Of course, once we add this plus selective targeting, the behavior starts getting more and more track-like."

is it more track like, or is just giving us more control like we have been wanting since June 21st?

I have always wanted a target system, it would make things a lot easier to control. The "monitor" system in the Angle editor is a great example of that as it is, essentially, a target system and it works pretty well for that. Now, if we could have those targets on clips, or secondaries, it would give us even more control, and it still fits in to the trackless thingy. I'm not sure I can mention the pair of dimes word again.

And, to help with the multichannel audio, it would be great if I break apart the multichannel audio, and that clip is NOT in the primary, that the audio would stay attached to the originating clip instead of attaching it to the primary. Again, it doesn't need to be in a track, I just need to change it's connection origin and reap the gains that would create.

[David Lawrence] "There's a reason you don't see DAWs or sequencers work this way."

Sequencers work to keep things in sync. While it might not look like the magnetic timeline of FCPX, there are certain ways it operates like it.

[David Lawrence] "Is the single primary limit really the thing that drives editorial efficiency in FCPX? With a little creativity, track-based systems could also incorporate most or maybe all of the things you like about the magnetic timeline."

I think it is the basis for efficiency, yes. Is it perfect right now? No. I do think it will work, I really do, I just think there needs to be a few more user control features added. And I am sure Apple is aware of this, although perhaps I am just being naive.

[David Lawrence] "For example, Premiere Pro has a nice clip grouping function "

Yes, yes it does. The more I play with it, the more I like Premiere.

[David Lawrence] "What if you could hold down a modifier key and when you move a group, instead of overwriting adjacent clips, they'd move out of the way? Maybe the track could expand vertically and they could jump into a space above. Hold down another modifier and move any individual object in the group. Then add a toggle on the timeline for ripple. Leave it on if you like to working that way. Then add metadata for clip selection, etc."

I am not being facetious here, but this sounds on a very basic level, like the FCPX timeline. No, it doesn't work exactly that way, but it is very close.

[David Lawrence] "Lots of possibilities for the best of all worlds in FCPX, assuming Apple wants to expand the model. Multiple primaries would be a great start. Their solution to the multitrack audio problem will tell us a lot."

I completely agree. The timeline needs a bit of help, and I think Apple is still listening.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 20, 2012 at 6:06:08 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am not being facetious here, but this sounds on a very basic level, like the FCPX timeline. No, it doesn't work exactly that way, but it is very close."

Exactly! But with the option of tracks for those who need them. ;)

[Jeremy Garchow] "The timeline needs a bit of help, and I think Apple is still listening."

Agreed and hope you're right.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 10:24:15 pm

[David Lawrence] "It appears that each angle gets its own independent "track". This makes sense given what you would be doing with the tool. Anyone who's actually used it -- please let me know if this is correct or not."

I've looked at the longer demos, and the image your looking at it is, I believe, the angle tool construct, where you can revise the layout of the multi-clip.

When actually using the multi-clip in the timeline it's all on one "track" or "rail" or whatever the f*** they are calling it, no matter which angle you choose.

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: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 10:34:24 pm

[Herb Sevush] "'ve looked at the longer demos, and the image your looking at it is, I believe, the angle tool construct, where you can revise the layout of the multi-clip. "

Yes, that's all I was referring to, the tool that lets you adjust layout and sync, not how you cut on the timeline afterwards.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 15, 2012 at 1:09:07 am

[David Lawrence] " Any asset in the window is independently mapped directly to time via its position in space. Multitrack is a nature extension of this paradigm."

I guess it's how you define that relationship. Everything in FCPX relates to that primary storyline of time. Anything in the primary is fixed to time if you want it to be. Anything connected to that will also be fixed to that point in the clip. It changes the relationship of clips. If I know something has to hit at a certain time in the sequence, then it goes in the primary at that time, and I edit around it accordingly, just like you do in FCP7, but there's a few different rules.

[David Lawrence] "Four completely separate audio tracks -- drums, bass, guitar, vocals. Which one goes in the Primary?"

The one you want to determine time, and the rest is connected. Let's say it's drums. You put the drums in the primary, and everything else stays in relation to the drum, if you want to change the relationship, you move it, just like in FCP7. Or if the relationship between those elements is fixed, you have to compound them all, then you can move them very easily in time together.

What goes in the primary is usually about what drives the time, and yes you have to mindful of it.

If you have a certain section that has a certain length of music, then music goes in the primary, and the rest is connected.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 11:25:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can slide a whole timeline by an exact number of frames/seconds/whatever simply by trimming the gap, instead of selecting everything to the right and left. "

It's the same in FCP7


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 14, 2012 at 11:56:01 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "It's the same in FCP7"

How so?

Gaps in FCP7 and FCPX are completely different. You can't select a gap and change it's duration, or trim a gap in 7.

You do not have to select everything to the right or left of a point in X to move the whole timeline. You simply adjust what you need to the primary.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 15, 2012 at 12:04:47 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "How so?"

With Ripple Tool. RR, V, U type in the number of frames


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 15, 2012 at 12:43:11 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "With Ripple Tool. RR, V, U type in the number of frames"

Look at that, you learn something new everyday.

Apologies for being a bit wrong.


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 8:42:46 pm

I'm NOT exploring! I'm just pointing out something that all of the demos of multicam that i've seen to date
seem to conveniently ignore. Audio, and by audio I mean MORE than one track, is a critical part of the editing process. Accessing audio trks 2+ with the current paradigm is awkward at best.

Music video cutting against a single, unedited audio track.... OK. Nice trick. Now let's see the tool
used to cut a multicam scene with 12 iso trks of dialogue. That's a demo that I'd like to see.

Mark



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 8:51:37 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "Now let's see the tool
used to cut a multicam scene with 12 iso trks of dialogue. That's a demo that I'd like to see.
"


I've only ever done multi cam with relatively simple audio, as a matter of interest what NLEs could do this well?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 9:07:33 pm

[Steve Connor] "as a matter of interest what NLEs could do this well?"

FCP 7 and Media Composer.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 10, 2012 at 10:32:50 pm

[Steve Connor] "I've only ever done multi cam with relatively simple audio, as a matter of interest what NLEs could do this well?"

Cutting Grimm with 8 iso tracks and multi-camera right now on Avid. Cuts like butter.

Chris


Return to posts index

Trevor Asquerthian
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 4:10:21 pm

Would the audition feature have the potential to be used for 'multitrack' editing? (does audition work for audio?)....

This is a rough example of a multitrack layout I edit with... tracks 1&2 are master audio - all other tracks have clip level set right down but will pass on to audio mix session, in sync with the pictures, in the event something needs remixing.

0. came from line cut 1. from iso1 etc.

Would FCPx be able to emulate that at all in the current form? (e.g. the Avid tracks 3-16 are 'audition' tracks behind 1&2. Hopefully the 'audition' clip would be able to switch to any mono or stereo clip *and* be duplicated to allow multiple tracks to replace 1&2.



Return to posts index

Stephen Mark
Re: Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
on Feb 18, 2012 at 7:03:22 am

I came across this amazing thread after downloading FCP X for the first time and importing a dialogue scene from an old tv show I wanted to try editing for practice. The first thing I need to do is synchronize the picture and track. Picture was originally on film. I'm not concerned with output quality as this is a teaching exercise. But -- and recall I have never done a thing with FCP X (but am a highly experienced drama editor) -- I can't for the life of me figure out how to sync the raw dailies -- which then need to be subclipped into scenes and takes. I came to Creative Cow hoping for a tutorial. The only info I can find anywhere assumes the camera already has sound associated with it. I just have visible slates and audio claps. Can anyone direct me to some instructions or tell me how I begin? Meanwhile, this discussion is fascinating. It is so far afield from anything I ever think about when it comes to editing -- which is primarily how to make a scene compelling to an audience. But I guess people have to consider this stuff these days.


Return to posts index

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