FORUMS: list search recent posts

Tonight's the night

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
John Davidson
Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 9:40:06 pm

So tonight we're supposed to get some kind of sneak peek at new features in FCPX at the LAFCPUG meet (my first one of these). Do you guys think we're going to actually see something new, or is it going to be just a walkthrough of things that came out in the 10.0.4 update in April? Since we're shutting down the office early and trekking into Hollywood, I may bring a bag of tomatoes in case it's the latter.

I'll try to live tweet (@magicfeatherinc) if there's something awesome that pops up.

If there is a Q&A for the Apple guys, what should we ask?

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Lemur Hayop
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 9:51:02 pm

The "multichannel audio editing" that Apple is teasing about on their website. What's the deal, and will that require Mountain Lion?


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 9:52:09 pm

I don't think we're going to see anything new. I am usually wrong. As to questions I'd ask how they define the "pro market."

Tim


Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 9:56:16 pm

Maybe we should stick to questions that won't have me kneecapped in the parking lot later :).

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 10:06:12 pm

Good point. I doubt that I would have the scrot to ask the question in person myself. But it's still a valid question.

Tim


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 10:09:35 pm

I'm a bit curious what their official solution is to sharing projects and events over a network would be to maintain metadata across both systems, etc.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:47:36 am

I was thinking about flying over for it, but my wife's in SanDiego at a client conference so I'm stuck holding down the fort.

If you happen to see Mike Horton who runs the group, introduce yourself and say hi from me. We've been friends for more than a decade.

I suspect even tho there's a "no recording" thing in place, it's likely a few folks will turn on their iPhone audio recorders or perhaps even iChat AV with others from the room - in this connected age, there's really no way to keep information out of the public streams anymore.

But certainly tweet away.

I'll keep an eye on your feed.

"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

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:53:16 am

Actually, now that I reflect on it, I'd put the kibosh on trying to use iChat AV.

I forgot that the Apple folks probably can sniff out any connections they don't want and pull the plug on them.

After all, they invented the whole damn protocol!

"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

Marcus Moore
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 9:57:49 pm

Since 10.0.4 was (like 10.0.5) really a bug fix update, you have to go back to 10.0.3 released February 1 if you're looking for stuff to demo. That seems like really old features to be demoing for this crowd.



Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 10:02:04 pm

That's what I'm hoping. I've been obsessively hitting app store software update all week for an 10.0.6 update, but maybe it will come out tomorrow or next Tuesday. More likely, it'll come out with Mountain Lion next month.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 27, 2012 at 11:04:16 pm

Just like with the 10.0 launch and Lion last year, don't expect any correlation between the launch of Mountain Lion and any FCPX update.

FCPX updates happen almost exclusively on Tuesdays (outside of the Retina update and one of the bug fixes). But there's no telling if whatever they demo will be ready in a week, a couple weeks, or they might even say "This Summer".

Keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed. But you might be pleasantly surprised.



Return to posts index

Davee Schulte
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:38:23 am

I heard they'll be announcing this new thing called a magnetic timeline. It will revolutionize video editing!


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 3:56:13 am

[Davee Schulte] "I heard they'll be announcing this new thing called a magnetic timeline. It will revolutionize video editing!"

Wow. Snark on the internet. Just imagine that?

Actually, I'm monitoring John Davidson's Twitter feed from the LAFCPUG meeting.

He just tweeted that Apple confirmed at the meeting that later this year we'll be getting "multichannel audio editing tools."

So the evolution continues...

"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

Andrew Richards
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 3:56:55 am

Man, some harsh comments on Twitter around the #lafcpug #fcpx demo. Some of the attendees threatening bodily harm. You stay classy, LA.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Juan Salvo
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:02:55 am

Seems they forgot the 'New' in 'New Features'. :-/

Colorist | Online Editor | Post Super | VFX Artist | BD Author

http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index


Lemur Hayop
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:13:13 am

The new features announcement seem to mirror what's been on the Apple website for weeks. Apple has to stop being secretive, vague, and non-committal. That's old skool.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:14:04 am

[Andrew Richards] "Man, some harsh comments on Twitter around the #lafcpug #fcpx demo. Some of the attendees threatening bodily harm. You stay classy, LA."


Yep, a SURE way to get Apple to be more forthcoming is to make absolutely sure to TRASH them at every single baby step they take toward openness.

Welcome to the era of the new Roman Twitter Coliseum.

Mark my words, the BlackMagic camera will ship - and no matter how cool it might be - there will be legions of twitter-twits and semi-pro haters prepared to tell us how crappy it actually is because it won't be totally perfect.

What an era.

"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 Gissing
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:19:01 am

[Bill Davis] "Yep, a SURE way to get Apple to be more forthcoming is to make absolutely sure to TRASH them at every single baby step they take toward openness."

Fawning adoration didn't work so why not try open critique? The fact that Apple are making an effort to talk opening is because people have been openly critical. So by all mean keep the public bashing if it will actually make them more open.

Personally I doubt Apple will do anything differently but it sure is cathartic.


Return to posts index

Roger Suski
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:43:54 am

It seems Apple can't help itself. Billing the demo as 'new features' sets wrong expectation. Much like calling the MacPro 'new' -- They planned a "mythbuster" preso and did that...should have billed it as such.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:51:21 am

[Michael Gissing] "Fawning adoration didn't work so why not try open critique? The fact that Apple are making an effort to talk opening is because people have been openly critical. So by all mean keep the public bashing if it will actually make them more open.

Personally I doubt Apple will do anything differently but it sure is cathartic."


Please.

Show me one second after the 15 minute mark of the X launch at NAB 2011 where the program has experienced such widespread "fawning adoration" - I dare you.

So I think you're starting out with an false premise.

The only thing X debuted with was massive mis-understanding. Nobody understood the magnetic timeline. nobody understood the Event Browser, nobody understood the relational database, nobody understood connected clips, compound clips or even how to export a piece of work for the initial weeks that FCP-X was relentless bashed as "iMove lite" largely by a class of pundits that had never touched it.

After what, about 3 months - the discussion finally started to change. Less mindless bashing and more examination of the new concepts.

Now, hardly anyone but the clueless yells about the "magnetic timeline" unless everyone discovered you can turn it off with a trivial "P" keystroke.

The debate continues, but now largely about what X is good for - and what types of editing needs tools that X doesn't feature.

Lots and lots of working editors are using it.

And we're doing just fine with it.

I'll end with my traditional question, Michael.

What doesn't X do "right now" that's the stopper that you think will cause an editor problems using it?

(BTW, I acknowledge that there are certainly things in this classification, just fewer than many non-users of the software imagine, IMO.)

I'm truly interested to know.

"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 Gissing
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:11:54 am

Bill I am bored with repeating myself about why X doesn't work for me. Look it up if you want my traditional response.

Fawning adulation for Apple preceded X by over a decade. Apple have had a history of stony silence and gushing prediction by their user base. When edit pros scream murder they are not making it up. Expectations dashed makes for noisy angry punters. So what are Apple doing? More of the same.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 8:48:47 pm

[Bill Davis] "Now, hardly anyone but the clueless yells about the "magnetic timeline" unless everyone discovered you can turn it off with a trivial "P" keystroke."

I discovered "P" keystroke after using FCPX for five minutes. After six minutes of using FCPX I discovered "P" dosen't turn magnetic timeline off.

[Bill Davis] "Nobody understood the magnetic timeline. nobody understood the Event Browser, nobody understood the relational database, nobody understood connected clips, compound clips"

With this statement you insult too many people.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:20:50 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "With this statement you insult too many people."

I'm not "insulting" anyone unless it's someone who has a particularly thin skin.

I'm reciting my factual experience.

On it's release, nobody actually "understood" the full functions of X's since those specific capabilities in that configuration had never been seen before.

I'd been editing nearly daily in Legacy for 10 years, and it took me easily more than a month to begin to properly understand how X worked . Are you claiming that there were people who opened the program up and "got" it fully on that first day? If so, I'd like to meet them, because they're clearly a lot more clever than all of us here who've been debating this program for a year plus.

It's historically accurate to say, however, that there were plenty of loud public voices "decrying" it from day one.

My contention is that in many cases, the trashed it without understanding it properly - a practice that continues, tho much muted as more people have actually investigated it for themselves.

It's a year later, and again in almost daily use, I'm still finding things in X that I didn't fully comprehend up to very recently. (Batch re-naming comes to mind as an example)

I have great respect for the people who've been here exploring X it in this community and who can articulate the reasons that they continue to find it lacking for their type of work.

What I don't have respect for is those who continue to contend that it's a poor general editing tool - but who don't seem to understand the basics of how it functions.

This is the heart of the entire debate on-going debate here.

Want proof? Go over to Techniques. Turn off your "kill newbie posts" filter and read for a while.

it's not "insulting" to claim that a thing is widely mis-understood - if in fact the thing IS mis-understood.

Not by all, certainly - but still by many.

My 2 cents.

"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

Craig Seeman
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:09:15 am

[Bill Davis] "What I don't have respect for is those who continue to contend that it's a poor general editing tool - but who don't seem to understand the basics of how it functions. "

The basketball player's guide to baseball (FCPX)

After playing basketball for 10 years he's handed a baseball
"How the heck I'm I supposed to dribble this?"

"You don't, you use this" (handed a bat)"

"How they heck can I dunk with that? I can do it with a big ball and my hands with more accuracy"

Points to the fences.

"Sheesh, you really expect me to walk that far? That's no way to play a sport?



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:12:03 am

[Craig Seeman] "The basketball player's guide to baseball (FCPX)

After playing basketball for 10 years he's handed a baseball
"How the heck I'm I supposed to dribble this?"

"You don't, you use this" (handed a bat)"

"How they heck can I dunk with that? I can do it with a big ball and my hands with more accuracy"

Points to the fences.

"Sheesh, you really expect me to walk that far? That's no way to play a sport?"




(grin)

"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: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:13:07 pm

There is a difference between understanding some concept and learning every workaround to use an implementation of a flawed concept for actual work.

There is nothing hard in the magnetic timeline, the Event Browser, the relational database, connected clips, compound clips to understand.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:17:37 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "There is a difference between understanding some concept and learning every workaround to use an implementation of a flawed concept for actual work."

True.

There's also some value in learning that what a particular individual has chosen to tag as "flawed" might be seen as tremendously beneficial to those who might be better able to separate their cognitive thinking from their emotional thinking and thereby resist projecting that same emotional thinking to the world as factual.

It's "flawed thinking" for you.

It's extremely useful new thinking for me.

As one small concrete example, I do a lot of voiceover work. Using the "flawed" magnetism of X, I can pre-cut a narration in the Event browser using favorites, drag them to the magnetic timeline, and have a near finished VO track significantly faster than I could do audio rough editing in Legacy.

And wonder of wonders, that pre-edit is stored in the EB and available for me to bring into multiple projects making me even more efficient over subsequent work.

Without magnetism, that workflow isn't nearly as efficient. I know that because I've done it both ways now.

Your "flawed concept" - in the hands of someone who - instead of dismissing it based on a negative emotional response - has taken the time to look at a common task that it might improve has proved to me to be a major efficiently boost.

I'm sorry you can't see this kind of thing. But I at least hope you're content in your dismissive grumpiness - and that the same eventually helps you find solutions that work as smoothly for you as X works for me.

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

Richard Herd
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:35:23 pm

Hey Bill,

I have also observed that X is a bit quicker, but now I'm running into billing issues. That is a job that used to take an hour, now takes 15 minutes. For example, audio is way faster for me in X than it was in 7. Additionally, in some cases, I can finish an edit before the transcoding finishes (p2 mxf to mov). I finished a 4 hour job in 90 minutes. Client is just as happy. I mean uh, how are you personally dealing with the business side of your editing business? -- if you don't mind me asking.

(Additional context includes the notion that so-and-so has a nephew who can do the same thing for 25% of the rate, so there's a trend to race to the bottom that has been widely discussed in the Cow's business forum.)

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:24:32 pm

[Richard Herd] "Client is just as happy. I mean uh, how are you personally dealing with the business side of your editing business? -- if you don't mind me asking."

Happy to address that - but understand this is my personal approach to business issues, not any standard.

I personally NEVER charge for things based on TIME if I can possibly avoid it.

Think about it, charging for time means that the worker who's less-competent and therefore slow - makes MORE than the person who's extremely competent - and therefore fast. It makes no sense to me at all.

I prefer to charge based on the quality of my solutions and the value they provide to my clients, not on the time and effort expended.

In other words, my billings are typically related to the size and scope of the problem I'm addressing. My billings are based on my capabilities, learning, and accumulated experience, not on the number of hours i put in.

Heck, anyone who does creative work and who's honesty will admit that sometimes quality results are a huge struggle, and other times, good solutions come easily. But they only can come easily, because you've put in the years of hard work necessary to learn your craft. And I actually think that's worth MORE than the number of hours you put in.

This isn't perfect, or even always germane, and sometimes I'll freely admit that "time and materials" billing has an unavoidable place in the world.

Just my 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:16:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "my billings are typically related to the size and scope of the problem I'm addressing. My billings are based on my capabilities, learning, and accumulated experience"

And how, exactly, is that any different from the concept of billing for time? What if the client differs from your valuation of your capabilities, learning, and accumulated experience? And how do you codify that in a bill? How many times do clients ask you "how long will this take?" How may times do you ask yourself that question in trying to schedule your time? I bill my time based on intangibles as well. But I still bill for my time. Even if it's a flat rate there is an understanding that that flat rate will only take up so much of my time. If it wasn't that way then jobs could go on indefinitely. To say that time doesn't fit into the billing equation is incomprehensible to me.

Tim


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 30, 2012 at 1:38:10 am

[TImothy Auld] "And how, exactly, is that any different from the concept of billing for time?"

Think of it like this.

Say that in my market, I can hire a typical carpenter for anywhere from $15 an hour to $40 an hour and I think the job I need done is gonna take 10 hours.

But then there's Dave.

Dave's work in outstanding - everybody says that - but after a lot of years of outstanding work, Dave won't take a job for less than $1000.

He promises that unless the job goes way outside the scope of work he's agreed to in advance - his bill will be fist at that rate. $1000. Period.

You'll never know how many hours it takes Dave. He might take 10 hours. Or not. He might spend 20 hours just THINKING about how he's going to design and approach your job and only 1 hour doing it. But he still gets his $1000.

There will be clients for all the hourly rate carpenters.

And there will be clients who want Dave.

On his terms.

That's the best way I can explain how I see hourly rates.

I've said many times here that I'm not a pure "editor." I'm a video producer who edits his own projects.

My billing approach is to give my clients a firm quote. Not on the time, but on the value I can put into the whole project to align the work with their overall business purposes.

That's what I'm selling. Not hours of pushing buttons, or running a camera. Those things, In my view - are incidentals to what I take responsibility for delivering.

Then again, as I've said here many times, I write, direct, shoot, and yes, edit most of my own projects - sometimes solo, sometimes working with a self-assembled crew.

But remember, this is Creative Cow - not Editors Cow. Editing is just one skill in the creative continuum.

So I probably tend to see things differently from those who self describe purely as editors.

Feel free to disagree, but that's how I work.

"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

Walter Soyka
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jul 3, 2012 at 9:07:54 pm

Apologies for the delayed response!


[Bill Davis] "Say that in my market, I can hire a typical carpenter for anywhere from $15 an hour to $40 an hour and I think the job I need done is gonna take 10 hours. But then there's Dave. Dave's work in outstanding - everybody says that - but after a lot of years of outstanding work, Dave won't take a job for less than $1000. He promises that unless the job goes way outside the scope of work he's agreed to in advance - his bill will be fist at that rate. $1000. Period. You'll never know how many hours it takes Dave. He might take 10 hours. Or not. He might spend 20 hours just THINKING about how he's going to design and approach your job and only 1 hour doing it. But he still gets his $1000."

I usually work on project fees, much like Dave does.

But here's the thing -- my fees are still largely based on the time I think it will take me times the resources I will employ to make my deliverables. Why? Because as professionals providing a service, the biggest limit on our capacity is time. Taking on a project creates an opportunity cost for us; once we dedicate resources to one project, our capacity to do others is at least partially blocked until the first commitment's obligations are met.

Put another way, we can only do so much editing in a week, because the process is bound by time. If you take on projects that do not make up the cost of the time they take to complete, you'll eventually be out of business.

I am not saying that you have to count your client's billing in hours -- like I said above, I often do project-fee-for-agreed-scope billing just like Bill. I am saying that the phrase "time equals money" is really an equation, too, and even when we don't literally bill for time, we must be cognizant of its value.


[Bill Davis] "My billing approach is to give my clients a firm quote. Not on the time, but on the value I can put into the whole project to align the work with their overall business purposes. "

This isn't necessarily opposed to time-based billing. Value is accounted for in time billing by the rate.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jul 2, 2012 at 3:58:58 am

[TImothy Auld] "en if it's a flat rate there is an understanding that that flat rate will only take up so much of my time."

Another way of saying that is socially necessary labor time. For me, I nudge down the money if the creative project is high. I nudge up the money if there's corporate marketing involved.

Someone who has a good script and needs some help, I have charged less.

A Marketing campaign that has a terrible script and needs help, I have charged more.

The marketing bids, for me though, have always negotiated rate/hour and I argue them as shooting ratio. Saying things like "If I shoot 1 hour of footage, I still have to watch that 1 hour of footage."


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jul 2, 2012 at 3:35:32 am

Actually, this is very helpful, Bill.

[Bill Davis] "NEVER charge for things based on TIME" (although I redacted unfairly, to highlight the generality).

thanks!


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:50:21 pm

It's also an era where folks mistake their feelings for observations.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:48:15 am

So just to recap the night, Apple sent a representative into the Lion's den to show off some of the updates since launch and demoing FCPX in action. It felt that the room was largely filled with a few folks who use FCPX, and more folks who haven't kept up with what's new(ish).

The LAFCPUG site seemed to imply that new things were coming or would be demo'ed. That's why I went.

I'm glad to see Apple making an effort to dispel some of the rumors regarding FCPX. I do wish they'd spend more time having Q&A's with those of us who use it, or attempt to use it. The way they edit with FCPX is very very different than how we've found best to use it. I wish I could show them. I think it would help.

Until then - no primary storyline for us commercial guys!


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:59:15 am

[John Davidson]"The way they edit with FCPX is very very different than how we've found best to use it. I wish I could show them. I think it would help."

Thanks John for the report and interesting observation. I think that sentence sums up the fundamental problem. Every editor that I know that has looked at X has felt the software writers simply do no understand editing and that they are required to work around a methodology not with it.

I am speaking for the largely silent majority with that observation, not the vociferous minority. My job is to service a pool of editors with post finishing so I am in contact with 40- 60 editors each year and have regular contact with over 100. To date, not a single editor has switched from FCP 7 to X although about 20% have gone to AVID or Adobe in the past year.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 7:29:41 am

[Michael Gissing] "Every editor that I know that has looked at X has felt the software writers simply do no understand editing and that they are required to work around a methodology not with it."

You know or worked with? Because you know me and I love it :-)

I always have to laugh at 'the software writers' don't understand editing' assuming you are of the same opinion, at least that is what I read between the lines. What do you expect? Most editors don't :-))

And before you start blasting: Do the research about who is behind FCP and it all becomes clear.
From the wikipidia about FCP:
Randy Ubillos created the first three versions of Adobe Premiere, the first popular digital video editing application.[3] Before version 5 was released, Ubillos' group was hired by Macromedia to create KeyGrip, built from the ground up as a more professional video-editing program based on Apple QuickTime. Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found. At the same time, the company decided to focus more on applications that would support the web, so they sought to find a buyer for their non-web applications, including KeyGrip; which, by 1998, was renamed Final Cut.

He is still working for Apple :-)


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 7:41:27 am

Hi Carsten. So the progress score is 99-1 . However the last job you did that came to me a few weeks ago was cut on FCP7. Your voice, that I do respect, has convinced me more than most here that one day I will need to have FCPX if only to manage the translation to something else. I have publicly stated that before.


However, it remains that after a year not one single job from FCPX has come my way. That some editors love the FCPX way is not in doubt. However I think the majority of editors have the right to protest loudly at not only what Apple did with their favourite NLE but also how they did it.

I have worked with software writers for many years and honestly only a few actually understood what people did day in day out with their software. I know about Randy's background and experience but I have also observed the Apple 'my way or the highway' approach and fail to be impressed by the direction of FCPX.

I do retain an open mind to the possibilities and frankly I don't care what tool the editor chooses as long as there is an open pathway and some basic standards that allow interchange. It was a long slow fight to get OMF working so I get nervous when I see Apple dancing around with six iterations of XML in a decade and a history of trashing backwards compatibility.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:54:11 am

[Michael Gissing] "Hi Carsten. So the progress score is 99-1 . However the last job you did that came to me a few weeks ago was cut on FCP7"

Not my choice :-)

[Michael Gissing] "However, it remains that after a year not one single job from FCPX has come my way. That some editors love the FCPX way is not in doubt. However I think the majority of editors have the right to protest loudly at not only what Apple did with their favourite NLE but also how they did it. "

Absolutely. Just use the right arguments. And for the record 'I don't like it' is a total valid argument. Just to say that the people behind FCPx don't know what they're doing is not.

[Michael Gissing] "I have also observed the Apple 'my way or the highway' approach and fail to be impressed by the direction of FCPX. "

Can't follow here. Nobody forces you to buy it? If you're favourite car maker brings out a model that you just hate and don't want to use, you change. Even if you might have a decade old relationship with the dealer that you would have to give up. And I never heart that people take it personal when they do not like the new model anymore. Why do they do with software? Anyhow, looking at the traffic here lately the discussion is over.

[Michael Gissing] "I do retain an open mind to the possibilities and frankly I don't care what tool the editor chooses as long as there is an open pathway and some basic standards that allow interchange"

I understand that you have the problem that you have to be able to work with what is delivered to you and you can't just say: sorry can't do anything with it. But I doubt that it would be the case even now with FCPx. I could be wrong though not knowing your exact requirements.

Best


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:07:16 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Every editor that I know that has looked at X has felt the software writers simply do no understand editing and that they are required to work around a methodology not with it.
"


And yet FCPX is finally and NLE that thinks like I do (12 plus years on Avid and 10 more years on FCP legacy). I think the biggest problem is virtually no one, including Apple, is focussing on workflow possibilities (and there are many).

I saw Diana Weynand do an all too brief explanation of her workflow on a doc she's producing in which she named and organized clips in Finder to take advantage of FCPX import Folders as Keyword Collections. The value of that feature is made evident by showing how she works in Finder before importing in to FCPX.

Most demos and training I've seen show how this button does that, etc, and not how FCPX facilitates different kinds of project situations.



Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:37:57 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I saw Diana Weynand do an all too brief explanation of her workflow on a doc she's producing in which she named and organized clips in Finder to take advantage of FCPX import Folders as Keyword Collections. The value of that feature is made evident by showing how she works in Finder before importing in to FCPX."

I'd like to see that Craig.

That's how I've evolved our workflow as well.
I like doing my rough selects in FInder and folders and creating appropriate collections that FCPX takes of advantage of.

It also allows me to transcode only my selects at ingest, so I start with a keyworded, efficient , optimized project.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:25:40 am

[Jim Giberti] "It also allows me to transcode only my selects at ingest, so I start with a keyworded, efficient , optimized project."

This in a nutshell, is an excellent reflection of how X has changed the way I work.

It's encouraged me to see additional production pre-planning as something that's now MORE valuable than it was in my prior workflow. In X, pre-planning pays huge dividends not just for this your current project, but in capturing pre-work that can be leveraged via storage in Events for your future work.

Sometimes getting a new tool, encourages one to re-assess more than just how the buttons in the new software works.

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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 8:57:34 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I saw Diana Weynand do an all too brief explanation of her workflow on a doc she's producing in which she named and organized clips in Finder to take advantage of FCPX import Folders as Keyword Collections. "

Nice. There was an NLE that stored reel name in the folder name and TC in file name. There is a lot more of the moronic solutions in the abandoned NLE junkyard for Apple to dig up.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:23:34 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Thanks John for the report and interesting observation. I think that sentence sums up the fundamental problem. Every editor that I know that has looked at X has felt the software writers simply do no understand editing and that they are required to work around a methodology not with it."

So, what is it exactly that Apple FCPX engineers don't understand about editing?

If FCPX does not capture the minds of editors, then admittedly, it's a failure.

If anyone reading this is kind of interested in FCPX, but can't figure out the magnetic timeline, I suggest editing with the position tool on all the time. With this tool, the movements of the timeline/clips start to feel more familiar. It also slows things down a bit and perhaps that's a good thing. It's explained here: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/11374

There are times when I wonder if it's just the animated feedback of the magnetic timeline that confuses people. Editing with the position tool keeps the timeline movements localized to a clip level, and in my opinion, teaches a person how the timeline works and moves faster than working with arrow tool. Once you get a feeling for what the timeline is actually doing, you can then venture off to ripple mode if you'd like. Once you get that, then things start to fly.

Playhead replace needs to return, a temporary viewer would help with matching, and we need more audio controls. On top of all of that, we need more stability. I wish it was more stable, I would start to roll it out on projects.

There's also a meme that FCPX isn't keyboard editing capable. I find that to not be true. While it does need help in trimming feedback windows if you aren't using the precision editor, keyboard editing is actually not bad at all and very fast and accurate-ish. The default keyboard shortcuts do a good job, and there's a few that need to be assigned manually, but they are available. Extremely brief overview here: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/36871

If someone doesn't like FCPX, that's completely fine, I don't like other softwares. To say that Apple doesn't know about editing is an opinion stated as fact. The way I feel about it is that they do know design. Design has driven their culture for a long time now, and FCPX incorporates some of interface design, and it is much more
complex than iOS. It is my opinion that there is also some serious thought that went in to this program, it's just that all of the control is not available yet. If someone can't use it as they physically can't get the job done, it's understandable why you can't use it. If you don't agree with the choices Apple has made, that's great, but just because FCPX doesn't borrow Avid's long standing method doesn't make it any less professional or capable, it just means it's not following that particular method.

You can use layers to composite, you can use nodes. That doesn't make any one company know more about compositing than the other, they just employ different methods. Choose your weapon and get out and fight.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:02:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, what is it exactly that Apple FCPX engineers don't understand about editing?"

Three point editing. Replace at playhead. Dual system workflow. And generally they don't understand that editing is not about what happens after what but about what happens when.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:16:22 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Three point editing. "

You can't three point edit in FCPX? Weird. I seem to be able to, but maybe I've been holding it wrong this whole time.

Yes, playhead replace needs to return, for now you have to actually mark ins and outs (or a range for the sticklers that are most likely going to swoop in on this comment and say I'm wrong).

Duel system, meaning you can't get the dual audio back out (or you want to reconnect back to dual audio outside of FCPX)?

[Michael Aranyshev] "And generally they don't understand that editing is not about what happens after what but about what happens when."

But what about who and why?


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:32:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " I seem to be able to, but maybe I've been holding it wrong this whole time."

Try edit on one in and two outs (yes, I know about Shift).

[Jeremy Garchow] "Duel system, meaning you can't get the dual audio back out (or you want to reconnect back to dual audio outside of FCPX)?"

I want to sync on claps. I want to use a boom, several lavs and a production mix in multichannel BWF however I like without tagging each channel in each clip "boom", "good guy" "bad guy" and "mix" first. I want all talk of "metadata" and "relational database" to stop until real metadata that comes with those BWF is actually treated by the app as metadata.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:44:44 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Try edit on one in and two outs (yes, I know about Shift)."

I still don't see how this isn't possible in FCPX. You simply don't need two outs.

[Michael Aranyshev] "I want to sync on claps. I want to use a boom, several lavs and a production mix in multichannel BWF however I like without tagging each channel in each clip "boom", "good guy" "bad guy" and "mix" first. I want all talk of "metadata" and "relational database" to stop until real metadata that comes with those BWF is actually treated by the app as metadata."

Yes, multichannel audio also needs help. It's true. It has also been slated as one of the things to be released for this year.

Metadata can come in, but right now it's via XML (and it's limited) and you have to have a program that understands FCPX. It will take some more time, no doubt.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:01:45 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I still don't see how this isn't possible in FCPX. You simply don't need two outs."

I am also not saying this because I don't know what I am doing, either.

You don't need two outs all the time to do what you want to do in FCPX, like you might need them in three point editing in other applications.

If you know about the backtime feature, then you can do what you need to do.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:08:06 pm

pardon my ignorance cause ive only poked X with a stick, a very long stick..but it was my understanding you can only 3 point edit into the primary storyline? Def not ideal. Also, does slip and slide, still take whatever clip is on top or connected along for the ride? cuz thats no bueno either. Also no keyboard trimming? I cant imagine grabbing for the mouse, clicking and carefully dragging everytime i need to trim something, also no asymmetrical trim. No match frame in the conventional sense. No locking tracks, and multichannel audio is buggered.

I mean, these are big things for lots of editors and are quite basic techniques in the world of non linear editing. These things should been ironed out way before we got retina support, and even mulitclip.

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:29:00 pm

[Neil Goodman] "but it was my understanding you can only 3 point edit into the primary storyline? "

Nope, you can three point edit as connected clip, too.



[Neil Goodman] "Also, does slip and slide, still take whatever clip is on top or connected along for the ride? cuz thats no bueno either."

Yep. But with keyboard editing, you can make quick work of keeping things in place. And keyboard editing is possible, I answered that earlier in the thread and linked to a brief overview and also commented about trimming feedback.

Some of it is not ideal, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. There's plenty of things in any NLE that aren't ideal.

[Neil Goodman] " I cant imagine grabbing for the mouse, clicking and carefully dragging everytime i need to trim something, also no asymmetrical trim. "

You don't have to, and it takes more than a poke to figure this out. Two pokes and you'll get it. Asymmetrical trimming also possible, and all by the keyboard of you'd like.

[Neil Goodman] "I mean, these are big things for lots of editors and are quite basic techniques in the world of non linear editing. These things should been ironed out way before we got retina support, and even mulitclip."

Multichannel audio is buggered, no doubt, but most of the other basics are in there. You do have to actually use the software to figure it out.

Your other complaints have officially been announced by Apple to be covered in a release coming this year, but I have a feeling you don't care.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:17:35 am

i def do care.. I'm an editor, the more tools the better, and im not one of those guys hoping for it to fail..thats why i was asking, not to flame bait or whatever...not too mention i payed for it, so yea eventually id like to get my 300 bucks worth ;) I have a full time Avid gig, but i also do a ton of freelance, which is why i got into Final Cut in the first place. In the event someone asks me to cut on FCP-X you can bet I'm not gonna turn down the job if there paying my rate. Right now i feel like i can cut something in it, IF i had too, but not in the way that i typically cut, which is inevitably what i want.

Is there documentation regarding the keyboard/asymetrical trimming? i don't see it in the manual.. or do i gotta do some sort of class/training on it to get that deep, if so is there a particular one you recommend?

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:49:51 am

[Neil Goodman] "i def do care.. I'm an editor, the more tools the better, and im not one of those guys hoping for it to fail..thats why i was asking, not to flame bait or whatever...not too mention i payed for it, so yea eventually id like to get my 300 bucks worth ;) I have a full time Avid gig, but i also do a ton of freelance, which is why i got into Final Cut in the first place. In the event someone asks me to cut on FCP-X you can bet I'm not gonna turn down the job if there paying my rate. Right now i feel like i can cut something in it, IF i had too, but not in the way that i typically cut, which is inevitably what i want. "

Yeah, it's different, and if it offers no advantage to you, maybe there's no reason to learn it as it might just be that goofy, I don't know, it's a personal preference.

There are some things that are completely missing. A good multitrack audio workflow is a big one for me, but they say it's coming. A viewer for matching is pretty big, but my guess is that it will be selectable (like the multicam viewer is now) and that will be good. Better trimming window feedback would help. It's already there, but only when you use a mouse. The trimming "two up" view does not work with keyboard trimming. There's a few things that aren't there, and there's definitely some things that are too simplistic at this point.

But.

There's a lot that is, and it does work a little bit differently. I can't tell you if you'll like it, but I wouldn't try and make it work like Avid or it just won't work.

As far as training, there's a ton. I like Ripple Training, but there's a lot of others. Lynda Training and Larry Jordan are others.

What I like to do is mess around in fcpx's superior keyboard editor. You can search by terms, like "trim", you can press a key on the virtual keyboard and it will show you what it does along with all modifiers. You can also search by keystroke, and by category (like "editing" or "marking"). It takes time, it's not the most "see/say" way of learning, but it does allow me to learn the terms, and also informs me of what's possible and then I go and try and test it out. It's truly poking around.

I have no idea how you work or way you need to do, but organization is big for me, so that's where I started.

Then I moved to the timeline and all that goes with it. Again, I don't want tell you what to do, but editing with the position tool on all the time helps to keep things in place while you learn how the timeline moves, hold the 'a' (arrow) key to use ripple when you need it.

The color board is different, but I have to say, I really enjoy the quality I get from it, even if it bucks color wheel science.

There's a lot of fit and finish yet to be done, so you kind of have to go in with an open mind, don't try and force it to be Avid, you will be able to decide if it's worth it or not. It might not be, but personally I'm sticking around for a bit to see what happens. Fcs3 is still working for now.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:51:38 pm

I can roll square things and carry the round ones but I prefer vice versa. FCPX doesn't have ins and outs. It has ranges instead.In and out points allow for backtime edits. Ranges do not. That's why they had to add a modifier key – to override the normal behavior. When did they think about backtime edits? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:31:42 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "FCPX doesn't have ins and outs. It has ranges instead.In and out points allow for backtime edits. Ranges do not. That's why they had to add a modifier key – to override the normal behavior. When did they think about backtime edits? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing."

I have been very outspoken about my belief that FCPX loses ranges too easily vs. PIOPs -- recovering a range after clicking away should at least be achievable through undo -- but this issue aside, there is not a single thing that you can do with IOPs that you can't do with a range.

I actually think that using a modifier key on an Insert or Connect editing command to align to the end point instead of the start point is a very elegant approach. It's different than other apps, but it does make sense, and I don't think it's necessarily indicative of afterthought.

The name for the feature (Backstory) is painfully dumb, but what's wrong with the implementation?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:53:45 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "The have no idea about editing."

Really.

Dont' tell Randy, the chief architect.

Since he coded KeyGrip, Premier 1.0, FCP Legacy - all before he designed X, I'd say the evidence indicates he understands editing better than either you or I do since his name has been high up on the architecture lists of at least three of the best selling video editing apps of the past generation.

He just figured out that the way it had been done back when all that was available was two source Ampex Tape Decks, one record deck and a CMX controller - wasn't the way it really needed to be done today.

Perhaps you can't get unstuck from those concepts - but don't spoil it for those of us who can. Okay?

"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 Jacek
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 1, 2012 at 4:55:02 am

[Bill Davis] "[Michael Aranyshev] "The have no idea about editing."

Really.

Dont' tell Randy, the chief architect.

Since he coded KeyGrip, Premier 1.0, FCP Legacy - all before he designed X, I'd say the evidence indicates he understands editing better than either you or I do since his name has been high up on the architecture lists of at least three of the best selling video editing apps of the past generation."


Not necessarily true Bill. I worked with Randy in the FCP 1.2-3.0 era, and I can say that he did not fully understand editing then. He fully understood programming in ways that I cannot even comprehend, but that does not necessarily mean you understand the needs of the end-user. To the best of my knowledge, FCPX is the first project that he was the product designer for. For everything else, he was the lead engineer, which is definitely NOT the same as being the chief architect in my opinion. That would be the designer's job. There were many good-natured yet heated arguments between the FCP designer at the time and Mr. Ubilous about "what editors want", like keyboard mapping, which Randy insisted that nobody wanted. I can say that in most (probably ALL) cases I think the designer was right, and Randy was wrong. That doesn't mean that he isn't a kick-ass engineer (which he is) but at that time at least, he did not truly understand his user-base.

Since many of these arguments took place at Quark's cafe during NAB, I'll use a geeky Star Trek reference. Scotty might have been the best engineer in the galaxy, but I don't think we'd want him taking over the bridge when the Enterprise is in Klingon territory.

Live long and prosper

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 1, 2012 at 5:27:01 am

Thanks Chris for confirming what was so bleeding obvious when looking at NLEs that Randy was involved with. Perhaps to placate some, I should have pointed out the shortcomings in FCP legacy. Having worked with some talented software and hardware developers in DAW land, I wonder what all NLE designers and coders really know about the needs of editors.

All NLEs that I have compared to DAWs show too many key strokes, bad ergonomics and every one of them with the exception of Vegas (I haven't tried the latest Adobe offering), have awful audio editing & processing. Database management at the heart of most sound effects libraries in DAWs are hugely simpler and easier to search and retrieve. FCPX is interesting in that it is heading in the right direction for keyword searching. A typical DAW has to manage around 30,000 sound effects, retrieve them with simple search string commands and be able to audition and place them quickly. They have been doing that for over a decade so excuse me for not getting excited about metadata as being somehow new and revolutionary.

How NLEs interface with 9 pin tape machines for capture and playout have always been seriously flawed. They all copied AVID who got it wrong from day one. No matter what people put up as Randy's pedigree in NLE development, I just have to compare the results to simple benchmarks in DAW development that they could have so easily stolen if they truly understood how much better they were from a users point of view.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 1, 2012 at 8:55:45 pm

[Chris Jacek] " I can say that in most (probably ALL) cases I think the designer was right, and Randy was wrong. That doesn't mean that he isn't a kick-ass engineer (which he is) but at that time at least, he did not truly understand his user-base."

A false contention on it's face, IMO.

You simply can't say that he "did not truly understand his user-base" and at the same time look at the fact that the program he coded grew into the single most successful NLE program on the planet. (even tho it only ran on hardware and software that had a fractional adoption rate compared to it's Windows competitors.)

Or is your contention that millions bought and used the program whilst somehow deluded about how poorly he designed it for the very users who were buying it left and right?

It may be deeply important and even "mission critical" to editors like you, but In all my years of successful corporate editing, i've NEVER re-mapped a keyboard. Not once.

I know others do. But it would be interesting to know if that's 40%, or 1% of "all FCP editors."

What people in this forum keep doing over and over and over again is insist that once you become a "pro editor" what you need, must be close to what they need.

And I stand firmly in opposition to that contention.

Because "editor" today - simply isn't what it used to be.

There were a few types of editors 20 years ago - largely Movie editors and TV editors.

And today you have a hundred different kinds of editors.

"Video editing" in the modern era covers a HUGE spectrum of divergent needs.

I think Mr. Ubillos's original approaches to these things focused on a tool that worked better, for more editors, than any one else's solutions. In and for the era when it was designed and deployed.

That's precisely what I think he's done again with X. Designed a great tool for a new era of content creation and consumption.

So sorry, but I believe your "designers" have actually been proved to have been wrong - and Randy right.

Simply because his original program "out competed" everyone else's in the open market for more than a decade.

And now I suspect he'll do the same with a new tool for a different, more "connected" era.

In part because he wasn't overly blinded by what a minority needed - but rather started with what the majority of editors actually needed, then added additional "high end" features once the core was correct.

As a guy who's been editing with FCP since before JKL was implemented - I know first hand that this precise approach worked brilliantly with FCP Legacy.

I suspect it will work equally well with X.

We'll 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

alban egger
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 1, 2012 at 9:24:34 pm

[Bill Davis] "And today you have a hundred different kinds of editors.

"Video editing" in the modern era covers a HUGE spectrum of divergent needs. "


Yep, and I think FCPX caters to 90% of them. Maybe they deliberately don´t aim FCPX at the Hollywood Movie/Avid market, because that would mean the millions of others would´t be getting the best tool for their job? And how many big gigs did FCP7 get really? I mean blockbuster gigs. Not many, really.

Who says nowadays which NLE-style and paradigm is objectively the right one? When Apple came out with a one-button gadget-phone it was a toy. and Blackberry was the tool for professionals with buttons and superior e-mail services. Now the iPhone does pretty much everything a Blackberry does (though not the same way) and a whole lot more. So for button-phoners the Blackberry is still THE phone; it is maybe a better phone in its core functionality. But the iPhone and iOs and App-Store are built to do more.
I feel the FCPX story is similar. First it looked like a one-button tool, then Apple and 3rd parties filled it and now it is already near where FCP7 was after only 1 year. The iPhone needed 2 or more to allow for exchange servers to be accepted I believe.

Some say they refuse to adapt to an NLE, the NLE should do what they did until now. Well, there are competitors going that way. You might have to stay there. FCPX will not change its paradigm, because Apple is convinced its the right way to tackle the next years of editing.

And in my productions so far I have to agree with them in a lot of their ideas.



Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 6:50:34 am

[Michael Aranyshev] ".In and out points allow for backtime edits. Ranges do not. That's why they had to add a modifier key – to override the normal behavior. When did they think about backtime edits? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing.
"


Ahem....in FCP7 and I believe other NLEs I need a modifier to drag audio-disconnected from the video for a J-/L-cut. When did they think about J-/l-cuts? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing.

How does a modifier bother you? FCP7 was full of modifiers. FCPX understands in many occasions what you want to do without telling it. In FCP7 you need a lot more keystrokes or clicks to achieve the same results. A modifier is nothing else than a keyboard-shortcut. And in FCP7 I had to press "ssss" and "rr". In FCPX one stoke is enough or often not even needed.

You say they have no idea about editing, when you mean they didn´t make a program that fits your conditioned workflow.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 1, 2012 at 9:29:35 pm

[alban egger] "Ahem....in FCP7 and I believe other NLEs I need a modifier to drag audio-disconnected from the video for a J-/L-cut. "

Just so completely not true. You CAN create that condition for yourself, if you wish, but a single click or button push makes that condition go away until you want it back. I've worked for years without clips linked.

[alban egger] "When did they think about J-/l-cuts? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing."

This doesn't make any sense.

[alban egger] "How does a modifier bother you? FCP7 was full of modifiers. FCPX understands in many occasions what you want to do without telling it. In FCP7 you need a lot more keystrokes or clicks to achieve the same results."

I'm thinking you don't have a lot of experience with FCP 7 or you never bothered to learn aspects of it beyond the way you were using it.

[alban egger] " And in FCP7 I had to press "ssss" and "rr". In FCPX one stoke is enough or often not even needed."

Again, FCP is a lot more fluid than you seem to think it is.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 12:28:11 am

[Chris Harlan] "Again, FCP is a lot more fluid than you seem to think it is."

Chis, I really wonder how many of the folks who think FCP7 is so limited ever really mastered it. Despite its EOL and legacy baggage, it's still one of the most flexible NLEs out there!

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 1:15:02 am

That's a part of the whole FCP phenomenon. There are usually at least three ways to do the same thing in FCP. Some very apparent but less efficient, some extremely efficient but not so obvious. So often talking to a fellow FCP editor is like talking to a user of completely different NLE.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 6:12:06 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "That's a part of the whole FCP phenomenon. There are usually at least three ways to do the same thing in FCP. Some very apparent but less efficient, some extremely efficient but not so obvious. So often talking to a fellow FCP editor is like talking to a user of completely different NLE."

Exactly. Like a musical instrument, once you learn the basics, it's completely open to individual style. Many different ways to do the same thing. Even after 10+ years, I still make new discoveries.

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


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 7:53:37 am

Chris you didn´t get my sarcasm, as I copied a text and replaced phrase, about them not understanding how to edit.

FCP7 is maybe fluid to work with, but just like FCPX you need to adapt to it or adapt it. That´s what I am trying to say. To me FCP7 feels very clumsy. Maybe I don´t master it like many here, but then at least I have watched "masters" over the shoulder and I didn´t feel like they did treat it much different than me.

Is FCP7 flexible, sure. More flexible than FCPX or others? Hmm...probably depends, because also in FCPX there is often more than 1 way to achieve your result.

What makes FCPX so extremely fluid to me is the skimming, the regional keywords in clips and the magnetic timeline (which can be turned off).
Once you are in the timeline FCP7 is powerful also, sure. But editing nowadays is more than the timeline. It is system-management, media-management, clip/bin-management, editing and output in various formats and versions. The overall experience of FCP7 vs. FCPX in the complete workflow is what makes FCPX more fluid to me.

Of course the disclaimer is still valid, that FCPX is not finished yet and prevents me from abandon FCP7 especially in the output process, if want to work with the current broadcast-world.. There is work to be done, but the overall experience already now shows what potential lies in this software.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 8:30:27 am

Alban, I apologize for not getting your sarcasm, and I'm happy that you are delighted by FCPX. My main contention was with your statement about the J/L cuts, which lead me to believe that you were not fully familiar with FCPL. Forgive me for not picking up on your tone.

[alban egger] "Once you are in the timeline FCP7 is powerful also, sure. But editing nowadays is more than the timeline. It is system-management, media-management, clip/bin-management, editing and output in various formats and versions. The overall experience of FCP7 vs. FCPX in the complete workflow is what makes FCPX more fluid to me."

IMHO, editing has always been more than the timeline, and while I respect many of the new media management features of FCPX, it is my belief--and I DO recognize that I am less than a novice in regards to FCPX usage--that their value is somewhat over-stated, and that the downside of some of the media management tools--the lack of a manual save or the ability to easily save a range of backups, for example--is that they have the potential to be downright crippling. I also think that some of the media management tools of other NLEs (including FCPL) are too easily dismissed by some few X users whose enthusiasm borders on zealotry.

I'm not dissing FCP X; I've read enough comments over the last year to know that it is an extremely enabling tool for quite a few people. There are a number of enviable features, and I can certainly envision using it seriously at some point. Its just that FCPL has been so useful to me, and still has--despite all of the new competition--one of the widest tool sets available on any NLE, that I don't like to see it so easily dismissed.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 9:39:08 am

Chris,
I think we all here appreciate your always fair tone and expertise. I think what we want to find out in these discussions is exactly what you say: are the new media-managment tools helping, overhyped or crippling us.

I agree it is crippling, if you are not able to export a region of a timeline. I would also welcome a versioning of projects instead of the one and all 15-minute-save. There are obviously features and tools missing still, that have nothing to do with the "paradigm".

What I meant by "editing is more than the timeline" is this: some people here are true editors...they do nothing else. For those in fact Avid must be the best solution, because as far as I understand Avid thrives on multi-personnel setups, where one guy edits, one does grading, one does sound. It is this work-environment where FCPX is still behind despite XML. Adobe with its linking between apps is also ahead of Apple here. After all we can´t even send a clip to Motion yet (there is a 3rd party app, but it is not from Apple).

[Chris Harlan] " I also think that some of the media management tools of other NLEs (including FCPL) are too easily dismissed by some few X users whose enthusiasm borders on zealotry. "

I can´t speak for Avid, but what Media Management was there in FCPL? It happens mostly on the Finder level and in the Capture Scratch, which is pretty much the same as the Event-directory.

In FCPX I insert a card into my card reader and Import from there into FCPX.
During the process of copying the clips and optimizing the clips (if needed) I can edit off the card/disk. I am editing while the media is managed for me. I have a copy of my media in the event, it has maybe already metatags added etc and without any waiting I can edit. In fact it is funny that I found you cannot export until the ingest is done. It happens sometimes, that I am ready with the rushes for a TV-news-cut before the ingest is finished and I have to wait for FCPX to allow me to export. So I don´t see any crippling in this part of media-managment.

It is true FCPL could read some metadata: frame size, codec etc. But in FCPX you can now create a smart collection of "all 1080p with 29,97fps from one individual Camera" from a multi day PAL-shoot with 5 cameras - in 10 seconds you have these "slower clips" in one bin. And you can conform them to your 25p timeline with one button instead of going the Cinema Tools way which was tedious and resource taking.
That´s where Media Management shines for me. Like everything this can be done in FCPL also, but it takes more steps and time.

Another experience I had which I am surprised about: since we have this event paradigm I realize how often clients want footage from different shoots, which are now collected in events. They want the sunrise from the educational video and the hiker from the incentive event and the smile from the commercial-shoot. Before you went into your hard drive and picked those clips, which can be a time-consuming task. In FCPX I pull out the client´s drive with their 8 events on it and search for sunset and triple-A-smileshot and skim for a good hiking scene they shot themselves. It is now that I realize who spot on some of these features are for a production like mine that does many different projects for the same client. It won´t help for that one 30-second ad, but it helps for the investor´s-meeting-clip, which is just as important to them ;-)

Again...all this can be done in FCPL just as good, although with a little more time needed. But the idea behind FCPX is not as bad as some editors believe. This doesn´t make it a good NLE for dialogues yet. But the foundation that it will become that seems to be there in my opinion.



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:53:26 pm

So wait...are you asking because you need to do this? Or are you asking as a rhetorical move?

Try SHIFT-D.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:04:30 pm

I'm not asking anything. I'm stating that if instead of ranges FCPX had proper in and out points there won't be any need for Shift-D.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:22:53 pm

We have a saying the US: If pigs had wings, they'd fly.

Shakespeare has a sonnet that starts "A rose by any other name still smells as sweet." The point is Ranges v In-Out-Points is a silly subjective semantic squabble, in my opinion, that I don't care about. I wish you luck attacking windmills.

In the meantime, hit O on the clip, then SHIFT-D. And you'll backedit. Or don't.

:)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:45:44 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "[Jeremy Garchow] " I seem to be able to, but maybe I've been holding it wrong this whole time."

Try edit on one in and two outs (yes, I know about Shift).
"


Sorry I don't understand, are you complaining that it needs a modifier key to do this?

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:04:22 am

Yes, I do complain I need a modifier key to perform something that wouldn't need any modifier keys if it was designed properly.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:59:35 pm

An editor has very little control over who and why unless he is also the writer of the piece. The same goes for how. How is a director's job. An editor has a lot of control of what comes after what but in case the writer did his job this isn't much needed. An editor has ultimate control over what happens when and that's where the art of editing is.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32:26 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "Three point editing. "

Well this is fascinating.

In what way doesn't X "get" three point editing?

I seem to recall a Steve Martin's MacBreak primer on doing precisely that. Along with the comment that people "think" they can't do that in X - but in fact it's easy.

Input any three edit points and X does the rest.

Kinda like every other software?

"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: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:50:11 am

[Bill Davis] "Input any three edit points and X does the rest. "

You cannot enter three points in FCPX. There are always four point.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:48:29 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "You cannot enter three points in FCPX. There are always four point"

Michael-

This is true, but the functionality is the same. You don't even need to enter a range on the timeline, you can simply use the playhead as a point (it can be in or out depending on if you want to backtime or not).

If you want to use three points, ether the range on the timeline, then on the incoming clip enter either an in or an out. Yes, a range will be visible but only the in or out is important. If you hit an in, the out will be the end of the clip, just like fcp7.

It looks different, Michael, but it operates the same way.

And if modifiers bother you, how do you do any keyboard editing at all?

You also realize that you can change the keyboard shortcuts to your liking?

I actually find the FCPX default kb shortcuts to be pretty decent, and the shortcut editor is really easy to use and also helpful.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:48:40 pm

Visual feedback is the part of functionality. Visual feedback ranges give is different from the visual feedback in and out points give. With in and out points it is definite. With ranges it is ambiguous.

Modifiers by itself don't bother me. Using modifiers in place where no modifier needs to be does.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:07:14 pm

If you don't like FCPX, it's fine Michael. I have zero problems with three point edits.

For future readers, three point edits are entirely possible.

Mark in, mark out on timeline, find clip, mark in and edit.

Mark in, mark out on timeline, find clip, mark out, modifier edit.

Find clip mark in, mark out, use playhead on timeline as in point, edit.

Find clip, mark in, mark out, use playhead as out point, modifier edit.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:07:34 pm

'The way I feel about it is that they do know design.'

Yes they do but the timeline is actually the way it is for a reason. And the reason is not because it looks better.

If you start with the premise (and that's the only thing you can argue about) that the common timeline with tracks, track panels, audio and video separation and division causes all kind of problems that you want to get rid of, than you end up with the timeline of FCPx.
Apple engineers didn't say: let's make it more pretty. They actually solved a lot of problems the 'old' timeline has. And when you analyse it it it actually is not that different at all. And it doesn't need tools anymore that we needed before, e.g. the track(s) forward/backward selector. If you can't throw clips out of sync by deleting or inserting clips you do not need to select everything forward and move it out of the way. The timeline does it for you now. Just one of the many examples.

Best


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:11:54 pm

Unless you need to break audio apart from the video, and then there's zero indication if sync has slips.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:42:59 am

[John Davidson] "Unless you need to break audio apart from the video, and then there's zero indication if sync has slips.
"


But John, isn't that a function of at what point you decided you need to "break apart" things?

It's a choice, not a requirement that you decide to break apart clips. And when.

You can do it early, and deal with sync issues, or you can hold off, largely rough-in and even fine tune your visuals, then break apart and tweak your audio after your video is largely locked.

That's pretty much the point of the "picture lock" tradition in movie-making isn't it? To establish a visual core that you work your audio around, rather than just splitting and moving everything section by section?

I agree it would be nice to be able to do every-thing, every-way someone might like to do it - and have the program allow the visual to be primary or the audio to be primary in some contextual fashion - but in practical terms, it's kind of odd to ask the program to both keep everything in sync, if you're overtly telling the program you want to override that same sync at the same time?

X is "vertical relationship" based. Legacy was horizontal relationship based.

Both make tremendous sense, but they certainly require different thinking.

Just thinking out loud here.

"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

John Davidson
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:49:50 am

Here's an example - we had 3 channels of separate sound embedded in a single clip. We wanted to trim (but keep) just one channel and not the others - so we had to break the clip apart to do that. Then in the chaos of editing one clip lost sync with lip flap.

We're breaking apart less and less as we get the hang of it more, but that's a specific example of why we did that.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:00:31 am

[John Davidson] "Here's an example - we had 3 channels of separate sound embedded in a single clip."

Interesting.

What was the thinking that caused you to have to deal with an imported clip created to this kinda odd standard?

I know there are decks that recored multiple audio tracks, but I've never been in a field situation where the sound recordist embedded three discrete tracks under one clip.

(Likely I'm just ignorant of this, but I'd honestly like to know the workflow that created this - since I might run into it someday.)

Thanks for your time. This is helpful to me to understand how others work.

"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

John Davidson
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:08:56 am

Sure - it was either an episode of a show digitized from HDCam or a movie EPK (movie epk's sometimes have odd track orders). We were very green with x so as time has progressed we've learned ways around it. I do think that we still have to break things apart sometimes for export to protools as roles. I can honestly barely remember the scenario, I just remember that it happened.

Even though we started about a month ago on X, it seems like it was a LOOOOONG month in terms of how much we've figured out. It was the same way with legacy FCP. I still cringe when I think about some of the hacks I did to just play back a sequence correctly in the old days.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:18:42 am

[John Davidson] "Even though we started about a month ago on X, it seems like it was a LOOOOONG month in terms of how much we've figured out. It was the same way with legacy FCP. I still cringe when I think about some of the hacks I did to just play back a sequence correctly in the old days.
"


Ah...

That makes perfect sense.

Bravo and congratulations on looking past the first months hassles. Trust me, the deeper into X you get the more you'll find to love. And yes, you'll find plenty of other annoyances that have to be overcome - and even some that remain in the "this is more difficult in X" column in the long run. It's not perfect at all.

But I suspect that you'll also find what many of us here have discovered -

After a few months, the vast majority of the the big hassles recede (some, like magnetism, so quickly you'll wonder what the big deal was all about) - and here typically comes a point where if you have to go back to editing on your former tool - you suddenly find yourself deeply frustrated by how slow and clunky the old way seems.

Thanks for the time.

And hopefully, you can talk to those promo guys and get them to send you something other than a (video plus 3-channels of embedded stems) clip!

"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: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:16:16 am

[Bill Davis] "And hopefully, you can talk to those promo guys and get them to send you something other than a (video plus 3-channels of embedded stems) clip!
"


Bill, you just do not live in multitrack land, do you? For me, multiple channels is a way of life. And, its a good one. That I can get a single ProResHQ file with all stems attached as split tracks makes my life so much easier than back in the middle part of the last decade when you had to dump them off a DA-88, that I just can't imagine not having that ability.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:31:48 am

[Chris Harlan] "Bill, you just do not live in multitrack land, do you? "

Nope.

My production flow starts at field shooting - and while I often record to two tracks, it's normally boom and lav or lav and house feed - so I can choose the single mono track I want to actually use - everything else tales place in post and 99% of the time I deliver mono out to avoid stereo image problems and comb filtering.



[Chris Harlan] "back in the middle part of the last decade when you had to dump them off a DA-88, that I just can't imagine not having that ability."

I always wanted a Tascam DA-88! Never owned one tho. About the time I started being able to afford to spend that much on audio gear, a large government agency I did a lot of work for installed two of them in their fancy new studio. Less then six months later, ProTools started really taking off - and I don't think those two expensive 8-track Hi8 tape units ever got used for a single job! Probably $10k spent for something that became a functional boat anchor all too quickly.

Hopefully, the "multi-channel audio" stuff in X that Apple has now formally pre-announced will solve some of your issues with X in the coming months.

We'll 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

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:28:12 am

[Bill Davis] "Probably $10k spent for something that became a functional boat anchor all too quickly. "

Yup.


[Bill Davis] "Hopefully, the "multi-channel audio" stuff in X that Apple has now formally pre-announced will solve some of your issues with X in the coming months.
"



That would be very cool, even if it is just to turn off tracks/channels you don't want to use. I'm glad it is near the top of the list of things they feel they need to address in the short term.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30:18 pm

"That would be very cool, even if it is just to turn off tracks/channels you don't want to use."

Already do-able. You can enable/disable embedded source tracks in the inspector. That's how you "assign' which tracks get cut into the timeline. For feature stuff I generally only enable the source dialog track and enable FX or whatever only if I need 'em. Turning off/muting things in the timeline is really simple if you've assigned roles, or you can just disable 'em with a single key stroke "V" which does the same thing as CNTRL-B in FCP 7. :-)


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 5:28:21 am

[Charlie Austin] ""That would be very cool, even if it is just to turn off tracks/channels you don't want to use."

Already do-able. You can enable/disable embedded source tracks in the inspector. That's how you "assign' which tracks get cut into the timeline. For feature stuff I generally only enable the source dialog track and enable FX or whatever only if I need 'em. Turning off/muting things in the timeline is really simple if you've assigned roles, or you can just disable 'em with a single key stroke "V" which does the same thing as CNTRL-B in FCP 7. :-"



Hey Charlie!

Just so I understand, you bring in, say, a 42 min. ProResHQ file that has a 5.1 mix, plus a 5.1 M&E, plus 3 channels of mono splits. So, say 15 channels are in use. You're delivering in stereo and not using any of their music, so you are only interested in 2 of the 4 mono splits. So you enable your DIA or SOT channel, and disable all 14 other channels in the inspector, which allows you to have only the DIA channel visible/audible while editing. Is that correct? So then, you want to cut in a creaky door opening and use the attached SFX, so you place the clip in the timeline and then in the inspector you disable the DIA track (because the soon-to-be victim is babbling on in the background about her MBA) and enable the SFX channel. Is that right?

If that's all so, then FCPX certainly has better multichannel tools then I was aware of, which is, of course, not surprising.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 8:42:53 am

Sounds like a normal procedure in FCPX. You can do both: select the tracks in the Event-Library or when the clip is in the timeline. If you deselect tracks in the event you still carry them into the timeline (but they stay deselected of course) and use them when needed.

And it gets much better than that once you dive into compound clips and clip-skimming.....

If you only deliver in Stereo your explanation would work, but if you want to deliver in 15 stems again you need the help of roles to do that. AFAIK you are not able to give a track within a clip a role, but need to break it apart and might want to collect the tracks in a compound clip.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 3:46:12 pm

" Is that right?"

Hey Chris, Yeah, like Alban said below, it's really easy. In your example above, you could tell the inspector (if it didn't auto detect it) that you have 2 surround and 3 mono stems, so all you'd see is 5 stems. Then you can just select via checkbox (kind of analogous to soloing tracks) which stem you want to cut in to the timeline. If you need a specific stem(s) from either surround mix, just tell the inspector to display that stem as as 6 mono tracks (or stereo, mono, mono, stereo.. whatever it is) and select the ones you need. You can do all that in the timeline after the fact as well, personally I find it easier to "assign" the "tracks" I'm cutting into the timeline first. This workflow is one of the the things I really miss when I'm in FCP 7. A source with that many tracks to keep uh.. "track" of in any other NLE I've used is maddening, doubly so now that I'm cutting some stuff in X.

Getting elements out, however, is another kettle of fish. I just finished a theatrical :30 spot that I cut in X. It was... challenging. That, and compatibility with other editors at work on FCP 7 is what keeps me from moving exclusively to X. A few more rough edges to smooth out and I'm gonna start switching them over. That'll be fun. :-)


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 3:57:40 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Hey Chris, Yeah, like Alban said below"

The problem is, you don't have access to the two audio channels separately unless you break apart.

When you break apart, there's no indication of sync slippage.

To combat that, you compound and break apart every time you need to make an adjustment.

If you need stems, you'll need to break apart all of it before export as multiple audio Roles inside a compound take on the one audio Role of the compound.

This is where FCPX needs help. Multichannel audio mixing/export with sync indicators. Right now it's less then efficient/ideal.

I'm looking forward to what Apple comes up with.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 4:09:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Charlie Austin] "Hey Chris, Yeah, like Alban said below"

The problem is, you don't have access to the two audio channels separately unless you break apart.

When you break apart, there's no indication of sync slippage.

To combat that, you compound and break apart every time you need to make an adjustment.

If you need stems, you'll need to break apart all of it before export as multiple audio Roles inside a compound take on the one audio Role of the compound.

This is where FCPX needs help. Multichannel audio mixing/export with sync indicators. Right now it's less then efficient/ideal.

I'm looking forward to what Apple comes up with."


Hey Jeremy, True, but in your example above the only issue that effects me (if I'm not being careful) is the lack of sync indicators. Like someone else who cuts promos mentioned, I never use story lines and cut everything in as connected clips, so the audio is always separate. If I only cut in the channels I need, I never need to break things out in the timeline. I do agree that there's lot's of room for improvement, and also look forward to what they come up with. :-)


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 4:32:23 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Hey Jeremy, True, but in your example above the only issue that effects me (if I'm not being careful) is the lack of sync indicators. "

It would help, certainly, and can go a long way. If you're working in primary, it's all pretty good, but if you break apart a connected clip outside of the primary as the audio is now attached to the primary instead of the connected clip. This can cause big issues as the audio is divorced from the video. I do use the primary and i like it, so when breaking clips apart outsude of it, I have to be super careful.

I do like how "tidy" the FCPX timeline is (or can be).

A great feature is the "expand clip" option which separates the audio from video, but doesn't break it apart.

I'd be super happy of I could expand audio with all selected tracks, not just the pseudo mix down it currently presents, have differing Roles assigned, and be able to shrink them back up when needed.

FCPX has awesome short cuts to expand one clip, all clips, all clips with splits (j/l cuts) and then collapse all. Those are all kb shortcut ready, and makes easy work of working on everything, nothing, or some of it only when you need it. It is features and thinking like this that keep me around as what's in there is a decent start, we just need more of options and control of it.

Why don't you use the primary and edit with the position tool on all the time? Just curious.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 5:15:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "...This can cause big issues as the audio is divorced from the video. I do use the primary and i like it, so when breaking clips apart outsude of it, I have to be super careful.

I do like how "tidy" the FCPX timeline is (or can be)."


I've worked with audio separate from pix forever, so that's not really a problem for me. I actually like seeing the audio associated with picture. I know this is possible by expanding the clip height, but my timelines generally contain tons of audio "tracks" so I need to work at the smallest size. It would be nice to "lock" connected clips together though...

I'd be super happy of I could expand audio with all selected tracks, not just the pseudo mix down it currently presents, have differing Roles assigned, and be able to shrink them back up when needed.

That would be great, and it's a feature I hope they implement. At the very least you should be able to assign roles to individual channels in a master clip in the event.


FCPX has awesome short cuts to expand one clip, all clips, all clips with splits (j/l cuts) and then collapse all. Those are all kb shortcut ready, and makes easy work of working on everything, nothing, or some of it only when you need it. It is features and thinking like this that keep me around as what's in there is a decent start, we just need more of options and control of it.

Why don't you use the primary and edit with the position tool on all the time? Just curious.
"


Agreed, working in the X timeline is way more efficient than 7 for me. And like you, I look forward to additional options, control, and polish. I've been cutting stuff 40 hours a week for over 20 years, and FCP X, while often maddening, has made editing weirdly fun fun for me. :-)

RE: the primary.. Besides force of habit, the main reason I don't use the it is because of the sheer number of "tracks" I cut with, but honestly, it's mainly because I haven't adapted to it yet. Even using the position tool I find it more difficult to move stuff around quickly in the timeline if it's in the storyline. I've also found that secondary story lines behave uh... oddly when you try and move them around so I avoid them for now. I'll try using the primary more as i move forward, but it just slows me down at this point. YMMV ;-)


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 2:00:34 am

I agree in many aspects Bill. Today though, we tried to build a string out of 5 spots in X because it's important that we learn where problems can come from. Hooo-boy. Painful to say the least. It took all afternoon - it was a comical mess.

So we'll be keeping a FCP7 project just to conform protools mix files and final spot string outs with multiple versions. Could be worse - some things 7 is just going to be much better at. This way, we can make the most of x for editing and concept creation speed, and also take advantage of 7's crisp ability to lay back tape and easily manage a large string out of spots.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 7:00:18 am

[John Davidson] "Here's an example - we had 3 channels of separate sound embedded in a single clip. We wanted to trim (but keep) just one channel and not the others - so we had to break the clip apart to do that. Then in the chaos of editing one clip lost sync with lip flap. "

Suggestion: break apart, and instantly create a compound clip of it again. Now you can step into this clip and fix the audio as needed. You can treat every track your way. If you have several clips just put them all into a compound and treat this section of the timeline that way.
You might also want to add roles to the audio-tracks.

Once done, collapse the compound clip and you have a nice block of finished audio.

In the end break apart the compound clip so you have the roles visible for outputting the different stems.

I have yet to have a sync-problem after 1 year of FCPX in an 8-track universe. Knock on wood.....



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:41:45 pm

[John Davidson] "Here's an example - we had 3 channels of separate sound embedded in a single clip. We wanted to trim (but keep) just one channel and not the others - so we had to break the clip apart to do that. Then in the chaos of editing one clip lost sync with lip flap.

We're breaking apart less and less as we get the hang of it more, but that's a specific example of why we did that."


I had a recent shoot (double system from 788T) with two booms, 4 discreet lavs, and a mix of everything. That's seven channels of audio on each clip (plus the embedded guide track on the camera media itself), and dammit if I didn't use all of them (including the mix which is usually just a guide) at some point during the edit. I did this edit in FCP7.

It'd be nice (really nice) to be able to expand audio and have all seven of those show up instead of having to break apart. I don't mind setting Roles before editing as you can select large chucks of media and do it very quickly and easily, I just need to be able to drill down more than FCPX allows for at the moment.

I am greatly looking forward to the "later this year" releases as I really like the functionality and capability that's already built in, I just need more control and options. I don't necessarily need tracks, I just need some "track" like functionality in that I need multiple and selectable discreet audio 'channels'.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:15:02 pm

Did you try this? In an x audio tab, you can choose whether the audio is stereo, or mono, or surround. In mono, each piece of audio shows up as a check box and audiograph (not a true waveform). At that point you can listen to the audio and decide which one to use. It's even clever enough that you can shift-click many clips and turn them to mono, stereo, surround simultaneously.

In this way, no audio ever needs to be broken apart from its sync video. If you, on the other hand, want to add audio to the attachment, then you can simply add the clip again, from the viewer-that's-not-a-viewer and only use the audio.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:28:19 pm

Can I suggest you start quoting so we know who you are talking to? Select the text and hit 'q' and the cow will quote the text like this:

[Richard Herd] "Did you try this? In an x audio tab, you can choose whether the audio is stereo, or mono, or surround. In mono, each piece of audio shows up as a check box and audiograph (not a true waveform). At that point you can listen to the audio and decide which one to use. It's even clever enough that you can shift-click many clips and turn them to mono, stereo, surround simultaneously."

Yes, I know how it works, but I prefer to have all the audio in the timeline and choose which one to listen to and work on, and it is sometimes all of it, or just a bit of it, or sometimes I bounce to different channels in the same clip. I cannot do that by turning on and off complete channels in the X timeline. And then I need to be able to export those separately, which I can't do right now unless I break apart and assign different Roles to each. Here's a picture of an edit in FCP7, I just "can't" do this in FCPX at least very easily:



fcp7_multichannel_audio.png


FCPX works fine right now if you know that you will be using just one of those channels most of the time, but I need more flexibility than that and X doesn't offer it currently.

[Richard Herd] "In this way, no audio ever needs to be broken apart from its sync video. If you, on the other hand, want to add audio to the attachment, then you can simply add the clip again, from the viewer-that's-not-a-viewer and only use the audio."

If you need to export stems, you need different Roles, and the only way to do that is by breaking apart.

Believe me, I want this all to work, its just not quite 'there' in FCPX yet, but the foundation seems to be laid for it to be possible. Hopefully, this type of multichannel audio editing is what Apple is working on.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:39:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Can I suggest you start quoting so we know who you are talking to? "

Yes.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:53:32 pm

[Richard Herd] "Yes."

you're a rockstar


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 3:47:29 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "star"

I've been thinking about this and running some experiments, and I've benefited to your ample knowledge of X.

It all comes down to a simple question: how can you listen to 7 -- nay: 2 -- tracks of audio at the same time and evaluate a single one?

[wait for it]

You can't.

Therefore, I don't see the advantage you're gaining, ergo the png you posted. It's unnecessary for evaluating an audio stream. (Oh, and I lamented over the word "stream.")

Even in cases where the first 22.28 frames (yes, that's subframes) in X are syncable (to coin a new homophone) and the other bits are not, then you can simply range select and add the audio to any point you want, at that moment, I would use Q and then create a compound clip.

Granted, you're free to do whatever you want, and while I'm learning lots from your posts, I will still continue to use X, Legend, and PP.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:09:52 am

[Richard Herd] "It all comes down to a simple question: how can you listen to 7 -- nay: 2 -- tracks of audio at the same time and evaluate a single one? "

You can't, or,

You don't, you solo each until you find what you like, and X makes quick work of that as well with clip skimming and disable tools.

Also, I might need something from one of the other tracks that wasnt picked up on a boom, but rather only exists in a lav. Without looking at the waveforms, I might miss it. When I am creating the edit, I need all options on the table.

Also, in the png I posted, those are the tracks I used for review. When I send an OMF, I might include more than what I am listening to as the audio mixer might use a combination of the lav, the boom, or even the mix, basically, I give the most options possible, even if the audio engineer throws most of it away.

I might use what sounds best the fastest, the audio engineer might choose the lav over the boom as they'll be able to "get more out of it" after the eq/mix.

I'm not saying fcpx isn't viable, but multi channel audio mixing needs help.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:33:24 pm

[Bill Davis] "... largely rough-in and even fine tune your visuals, then break apart and tweak your audio after your video is largely locked."

This is a very constrained and limited way of looking at the edit process. This is an audio-visual medium in time, and interplay between all the elements is at the core of the challenges of editing - often one leads the other (video leading audio, or audio leading video) an often it is actually a more complex interplay. To restrict editing to "tweak audio after video" is a very limiting approach.

[Bill Davis] "That's pretty much the point of the "picture lock" tradition in movie-making isn't it? To establish a visual core that you work your audio around, rather than just splitting and moving everything section by section?"

"Picture Lock" is a point in post production where certain decisions (both visual and audial) are "locked in" - both the visual and the audio portions are developed more based on those "locked" decisions.

Franz.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:38:16 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "This is an audio-visual medium in time, and interplay between all the elements is at the core of the challenges of editing - often one leads the other (video leading audio, or audio leading video) an often it is actually a more complex interplay. To restrict editing to "tweak audio after video" is a very limiting approach."

Well said.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 6:58:02 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Franz Bieberkopf] "This is an audio-visual medium in time, and interplay between all the elements is at the core of the challenges of editing - often one leads the other (video leading audio, or audio leading video) an often it is actually a more complex interplay. To restrict editing to "tweak audio after video" is a very limiting approach."

Well said."


Agreed. I regularly reduce eight or ten syllables of dialog to four or five. I replace names with "his" or "she" stolen from other scenes. I compound different sentences from different bits of dialog. There is little or nothing I do that is not some form of J or L cut. All of this is being done while I'm working on about 12 other things and is an intimate part of the process of doing those 12 other things. So, for me, its not an afterthought, or something to do later.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:35:33 pm

"Agreed. I regularly reduce eight or ten syllables of dialog to four or five. I replace names with "his" or "she" stolen from other scenes. I compound different sentences from different bits of dialog."

FWIW, cheating dialog is really easy in X, mainly because you can freely move audio clips in subframe increments. Picture can still only move a frame at a time, for obvious reasons, but you can move audio clips however you want, not just the keyframes. Something I really miss when I'm in FCP 7...


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 5:32:07 am

[Charlie Austin] "FWIW, cheating dialog is really easy in X, mainly because you can freely move audio clips in subframe increments. Picture can still only move a frame at a time, for obvious reasons, but you can move audio clips however you want, not just the keyframes. Something I really miss when I'm in FCP 7...
"


Yeah, I think that's a terrific thing. What I was saying above was in response to Bill's notion of futzing with the audio later, and I was simply agreeing with Franz that audio and video editing are--for what I do--inseparable.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 30, 2012 at 3:51:22 pm

"that audio and video editing are--for what I do--inseparable"

Gotcha, same here. :-)


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 7:34:56 am

I was a little disappointed in the Apple presentation as far as "new" features etc. It was a nice recap of the past year and all the updates but the new bullet list is the same on we all knew about. It was a tough crowd though many seemed to come around a bit in the end.

The better presentation was Steve Martin's project sharing tips including fast web sharing (assuming the person on the other end has all the media etc.) and how to use Disk Utility and spare disk images to share entire projects - very cool.

Best of all I won (the famous raffle) a copy of CrumplePop's ColorKit Suite which I can't wait to try!

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:12:59 am

[John Davidson] "The LAFCPUG site seemed to imply that new things were coming or would be demo'ed. That's why I went. "

But that's not the impression I got from Michael Horton. We emailed a bit and he said he expected pretty much what I saw at the Blackmagic road show in NYC.

Maybe people construed "new" as upcoming rather than recently released.

[John Davidson] "I do wish they'd spend more time having Q&A's with those of us who use it, or attempt to use it."

They did that at the BMD road show. They had a table set up after the presentation. Probably not quite as easy to do at a user group meeting. I think Apple may need to rethink their trade show participation as a result. The problem is you really can't get professional questions answered in an Apple store. They really need to speak to the masses of editors, not just from a stage but in smaller groups gathered around an expert in front of FCPX running.



Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 3:50:58 pm

[Craig Seeman] "The problem is you really can't get professional questions answered in an Apple store."

I always wondered about the hiring criteria for the Apple Store. The sales staff on the floor seems pretty clueless about any kind of Apple software except at the most rudimentary level (and often about specifics of the hardware they are hawking). And the line for the tech desk is sooo long.

The nice thing is that if there is a computer open on the floor you can pretty much dink around on it with impunity.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:01:56 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "The sales staff on the floor seems pretty clueless about any kind of Apple software"

That nails the reason why the Apple Store is currently not adequate for professional software information.

[Clint Wardlow] "The nice thing is that if there is a computer open on the floor you can pretty much dink around on it with impunity."

And somehow I think that's Apple's reasoning for not attending trade shows. You can get some hardware questions answered but they don't have Sales staff trained in their pro apps. Of course you can't buy those apps in the store but if they expect the apps to sell hardware they have to assist in selling the software.

Apple needs to have Pro Apps Software associates/geniuses. They've pretty much killed the VARs so Apple has to fill the void.



Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:24:49 pm

I wasn't able to read your emails Craig, but the wording was vague enough on the LAFCPUG site to make a few other websites curious about it as well.

Just to clarify what I meant by "they don't edit how we edit", I was talking about promo people in particular. We don't do a ton of multi camera and with promos you're constantly switching out sound bytes, adding transitions, revising, slipping vo around - it's a 30 second catastrophe. Because nothing is locked in, the primary track has to be left alone. This eliminates some of the excellent trimming that can be done in primary. If we drop a transition on a clip, it makes a compound clip - then when we decide to extend the shot being transitioned we have to remove the transition, break apart the compound, extent, reapply transition, etc. We're constantly adjusting our workflow to make these issues less annoying (like adding tranny's at the end of the edit, etc).

I think for documentary, series, movie, and most other non-specific length editing FCPX is pretty awesome. With our specific work it just requires a few semi-clever workarounds. Let's not fool ourselves that there weren't hacks and workarounds with FCP7 though. When I cut home videos and stuff like that, the primary is fantastical. For us, for now, it's at best only useful for slates in a long string out.

I think more than anything else, people who look at X now are mostly sad that in many ways we've gone backwards in time to around FCP4.5, when OMF's didn't work and FCP was good, but not great. XtoPro doesn't work for us because it embeds the entire audio of a clip, not just the section you want with handles. Imagine a :20 spot going to mix with 7 hours of unneeded audio embedded in it. Yikes!

End of the day, we are using FCPX for broadcast spots on about 3 networks - right now. Going back to 7 for anything is no fun at all.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:43:08 pm

[John Davidson] "(like adding tranny's at the end of the edit, etc). "

I know everyone works differently, but that is certainly one way to bring a show to a close.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:59:15 pm

[John Davidson] "Just to clarify what I meant by "they don't edit how we edit", I was talking about promo people in particular. We don't do a ton of multi camera and with promos you're constantly switching out sound bytes, adding transitions, revising, slipping vo around - it's a 30 second catastrophe. Because nothing is locked in, the primary track has to be left alone. This eliminates some of the excellent trimming that can be done in primary. If we drop a transition on a clip, it makes a compound clip - then when we decide to extend the shot being transitioned we have to remove the transition, break apart the compound, extent, reapply transition, etc. We're constantly adjusting our workflow to make these issues less annoying (like adding tranny's at the end of the edit, etc). "

I know what you're saying John.
Seriously, just add a simple LOCKED TRACK function for starters.
I, like most spot producers in many instances, start with a 30 second piece of music and start cutting to it.
It's absurd that my only choice is to settle for compromised editing outside the Primary or keep doing what we do - create a 1 frame place holder at the top of the Primary in order to lock the music to it and have the Primary for cutting.

Absolutely mind-numbingly, irresponsible to have to do anything like that.

Just add the ability to create a fixed track as needed (because really, sometimes we just need it...OK) and then everything else falls into place pretty nicely as you grow with the program.

Then address the "almost a great idea" of compound clips by giving them context within the overall edit when we need to edit within them.

I'm tired of tricking X into being a good NLE when it would take no time or effort for Apple to allow it to be.

Oh, and could we make it so simple text doesn't choke the program?

Quickly addressing little things that are really kind of important would go a long way towards making this a great environment.

And so the love/hate relationship continues.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:03:00 pm

[John Davidson] "John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc."

You guys are out in Stevenson Ranch?! That's wild. I drive by your office all the time. Let's have lunch sometime!


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:04:34 pm

Fo sho. We're next to Outback. I'll show you our FCPX stuff :).

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A recap of the recaps
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:12:56 pm

[John Davidson] "Fo sho. We're next to Outback. I'll show you our FCPX stuff :)."

Love to see it! Doing a lot of mountain time for the first couple of weeks in July, but maybe just after that.


Return to posts index

Davee Schulte
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:09:37 pm

Did they actually show Dual Monitors and other upcoming features or just tell you they're coming, i.e. a rehash of whats already on the website??


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:12:03 pm

Rehash I believe

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Tonight's the night
on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:11:23 pm

They just showed a bullet point graphic and talked about it - no details but the crowd did cheer when they mentioned adding 2nd viewer.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Tonight's the night: ask about a new Audio GUI please
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45:55 pm

Please ask about a new audio gui.


Return to posts index

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