FORUMS: list search recent posts

2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
craig slattery
2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:31:34 pm

In 2005 I started cutting films for The Culture Show at the BBC. I'd been brought over by a colleague to help with the move from Avid to FCP5. Back then, we were one of the first transmission critical ARTs programs to jump on FCP. Let me tell you, we had some pretty nightmarish evenings. How quickly one forgets just how nightmarish it was. We never missed a TX, but we came close after some hardcore finger biting. Fast forward 7 years, almost to the day, and this evening the final Culture Show for 2012 screens at 10 pm. As in 2005 we have been pioneers with FCP, this time FCPX. During the autumn London run, every episode has contained at least one film cut in FCPX. The difference between now and 2005? The transition to X has been pretty seamless. You would hope so, FCPX is far superior than the version 5 predecessor of 2005. Its been Sooooo fast, edits booked as 2 days, on average have been cut in a day and half, so no late nights. The films, in my opinion have looked great on the telly. Tonight we have two films cut in X. An interview in New York with Lee Child, the author or the Jack Reacher books and a preview of the film by the same name, staring Tom Cruise. Plus the new black Comedy by British director Dan Wheatley, Sightseers.
So here's to 2013, merry Xmas and good luck to all the folks looking to cross over in the new year. Remember! pretty damn soon, FCP 7 will no longer be an option, and lets be honest, no one wants to cut telly in Premier!!!!!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:47:00 pm

Great post, Craig. Thanks for sharing.


[craig slattery] "Its been Sooooo fast, edits booked as 2 days, on average have been cut in a day and half, so no late nights."

This is the first time I've seen anyone actually quantify the the speed difference with a reasonable methodology.

I'm very curious -- where are you seeing the biggest speed gains? Organization? Skimming? Transcoding/rendering avoidance? Timeline manipulation?

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

craig slattery
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:22:15 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm very curious -- where are you seeing the biggest speed gains? Organization? Skimming? Transcoding/rendering avoidance? Timeline manipulation?
"


Walter, its all of the above, but also weirdly something that is quite none tangible and hard to describe. I think I can read the edit visually right from the start. The viewer I guess plays a big part and then the speed at which one can create the smart collections. Overall, I can see the tone of the film, the colours, the frame sizes. How busy the footage is, how wide or tight the material, I know you can do this to an extent in Premier but it feels different in X. Using the smart collections you can mine the footage down very quickly, I can see the presenter travel from one PTC to another at a glance. Having no tracks to deal with. That is probably the biggest time saver. When you get in the groove, cutting in X is so fluid. When you see the shot you need you just drop it in. No need to edit in the viewer, no need to clear room in the time line or select or deselect tracks. Ive got to the stage now, that I don't even care where the play head is. I see a shot and immediately hit 'w', It may land smack in a sequence that Ive just finessed. No worries, pick it up and move it. The clips just move back the way you had them. Ive found that even the directors and the Producers understand the timeline and therefore the collaboration process is profoundly different. So I don't know exactly why its faster. Its just is.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:53:16 pm

[craig slattery] "Remember! pretty damn soon, FCP 7 will no longer be an option

you may actually be surprised on how long that one plays out I think. And fwiw Premiere is coming up on Mandy pretty regularly lately. FCPX still whistling past the graveyard in total silence job posting wise - a guy on here did a trawl through grapevine, Mandy, prod.base there a week or two ago - not a single FCPX bean.

Fair play on pushing through what sounds like seriously effective workflow your end though.

last wee question - have you dipped toes into PPro 6 at all? - the media management is still a nightmare, but the timeline, and the trimming tools are preTTy damn good. You'd be surprised.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:24:45 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but the timeline, and the trimming tools are preTTy damn good. You'd be surprised."

Agreed!


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:37:52 pm

Observations on time taken to edit have so many variables like hardware, camera skills, shoot ratios, director and producer expectations and following workflow. For example did editors do more grade and sound edit/organisation seven years ago.

Is there simply more time/budget pressure so less is expected of the edit as overtime and facility access has been squeezed by declining budgets typical in broadcast.

Also how do we remove confirmation bias in such a subjective debate.


Return to posts index


craig slattery
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:33:09 pm

[Michael Gissing] "For example did editors do more grade and sound edit/organisation seven years ago."

No. In my example, Grading and sound always done by dedicated professionals in sound studios and Grading suites. We are using FCPX in the same way we used FCP5 7 years ago.



[Michael Gissing] "Is there simply more time/budget pressure so less is expected of the edit as overtime and facility access has been squeezed by declining budgets typical in broadcast."

Thats simple. The station wants, better, more clever, higher production value on screen, entertaining, slick, cool, shiny, ground breaking. And they want it for less money. We make the show for less than we did 7 years ago and it looks infinitely better today than it did even 7 months ago.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:38:26 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Is there simply more time/budget pressure so less is expected of the edit as overtime and facility access has been squeezed by declining budgets typical in broadcast.

Also how do we remove confirmation bias in such a subjective debate."


that is what is generally termed, a super interesting point.

I just did audio post level matching on a half hour corporate sponsored doc, and I'm not at all sure I did a very good job.

there was no money to go to actual audio post.

the interesting thing for me, given the time pressure, is that there are compressor tools available in FCPX with live feedback that I might well have loved to have had my hands on. I could have theoretically taken the timeline onto STP - but given I had one day to oversee voiceover, then take the resulting Vo wav to back to production company, and balance it against music and nats for multiple territory output with A3 and A4 running a no Vo mixdown -
there were real DB range issues with the IV, the VO, some of the soundtrack had really aggressive bass - I did pick the tunes mind you...

I kept, and I mean I kept thinking all day about this video:







watch it from about five minutes in. Its basically a road map to full edit system native audio mastering with VO, IV sync. forgetting the timeline, there is sheer utter gold in FCPX.
I never forgot any part of this video - four to one ratio etc.

its worth noting that, as an editor, you actually have about 90% of the parts of STP architecture available - live in FCPX.

that said, any audio guy reading this should be screaming in their sleep.

I'll take any word from an avid guy, but as far as I'm aware, no other editing system on the planet has these kinds of live audio mastering abilities in the timeline. I mean look at it - you are getting instant waveform feedback off the pro tools plugin.
that said the FCPX waveform itself is vector simplified unusable trash.

still though - it goes to CC as well. in some respects FCPX is simply show stoppingly powerful.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:48:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'll take any word from an avid guy, but as far as I'm aware, no other editing system on the planet has these kinds of live mastering abilities in the timeline.

it goes to CC as well. in some respects FCPX is simply show stoppingly powerful.
"


Steady Aindreas "X Gon' give it to ya"







Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 11:08:37 pm

good tune there steve, and hey - I'm on record liking a lot here -

but devils advocate aside, which I like - trust this white board apple engineer scribbled over mess as a core editing system?

nay, son.

Nay.

Apple are capricious dance partners. and they burnt a million bridges across london with X. I have to learn Avid, not FCPX.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:18 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...but as far as I'm aware, no other editing system on the planet has these kinds of live audio mastering abilities in the timeline."

Sony Vegas does... and has had these kinds of capabilities for years. I've known people who have recorded and mixed entire albums with it.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/audioproduction

Shawn



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 11:30:46 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that said the FCPX waveform itself is vector simplified unusable trash."

Aindreas,

I thought this was settled a while back - they're not waveforms, they're audiographs. Old habits die hard.

Franz.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 11:50:08 pm

sure god, franz, would you like to expand please?

I didn't even know the apple basis until I took the phrase to google.

http://zerokidz.com/audiograph/Home.html

the thing i am most curious about - is hearing someone tell me how they stitch audio network library pieces together in FCPX.

how are you supposed to work that waveform crud for chorus bar repeat stuff where you're re-working a track for time?

we all know that waveform is nearly unusable - why exactly in the hell is no one really saying this?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 11:54:29 pm

Because it's not unusable at all, been stitching away happily with it for a while!

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:59 am

not being snotty - but not workable to my eye. I spend half my life breaking tunes apart to make them hit certain crescendos or sustain to the final tail off VO scenario.

It's quite literally not a waveform in the timeline to analyse steve - that's not a waveform you can interrogate. And you might need to visually interrogate the waveform - not least because some significant stuff isn't seen in even the 7 waveform - I personally really need to get comfortable with exactly what the waveform is, if only because some of the significant beats that are buried in parts of it?

again - not coming high and mighty, and am basically waiting for seeman to come in on this given his real background - but I find apple made a major miss-step
boiling away a critical component.

there are a legion of different apple engineer hothouse failures in X - but I always thought their decision to deprecate waveform information into half useless garbage for the editor was one of them.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 2:13:25 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And you might need to visually interrogate the waveform - not least because some significant stuff isn't seen in even the 7 waveform - I personally really need to get comfortable with exactly what the waveform is, if only because some of the significant beats that are buried in parts of it? "

Yeah. I'm guessing I could get used to it, because others say I can, but I also find it disconcerting.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 6:23:29 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but I always thought their decision to deprecate waveform information into half useless garbage for the editor was one of them."

I'm confused.

How are they useless now, because you can actually see the waveform and control points in X, when the pink on green on greener in 7 can cause blindness?

Because the audio meters show and hold peaks and peak level letting you know how much level, in a number, you have to adjust?

Because at a glance, you can see on your entire timeline where the audio is overdriven or close to it?

Yeah. Useless.

Use the reference waveforms (the ghosted waveform that doesn't adjust with clip level) in X and you can line up anything, it's not rocket science.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 7:44:29 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "not being snotty - but not workable to my eye. I spend half my life breaking tunes apart to make them hit certain crescendos or sustain to the final tail off VO scenario."

Well, that does sound a little snotty and if I could be so so bold as to be snotty back and point out that I was doing exactly what you describe, on tape - before NLE's and waveforms and before you were working in this industry. It's still something I still have to do regularly, so I would like to think that I know what I'm talking about.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 3:52:04 pm

No - not work process, i'm not saying you haven't been doing this a long time at a high level - literally I'm saying the actual waveform or rather audiograph in X are not up to snuff. - are you saying you don't find that vector crud way, way worse than the audio waveforms in 7?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 7:13:52 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "are you saying you don't find that vector crud way, way worse than the audio waveforms in 7?"

Absolutely not, I actually find them much easier to work with. I'm sure other users may agree.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:03:43 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Aindreas Gallagher] "are you saying you don't find that vector crud way, way worse than the audio waveforms in 7?"

Absolutely not, I actually find them much easier to work with. I'm sure other users may agree.
"


My problem with them--and it very well may be that I just don't know how to read it well yet--is that I loose a tad too much in the way of information. With the baseline as zero, how to you decipher any of the qualities you can discern from wave asymmetry? How do you see DC Offset or asymmetrical clipping? The variance of the wave below the baseline from above often tells me distinct things about harmonics, and occasionally lets me recognize where I might have issues that aren't immediately apparent on the laptop speakers I'm currently using. At a glance, the full wave drawing can often set apart music from dialog--again because of unique asymmetric patterns--and visually clarify the difference between a bass drum and a whistle.

Now, this is not a deal breaker, and I realize that most people use the waveform almost exclusively to find a place to cut, and to monitor amplitude, but there are good reasons for displaying the full wave, which is why most everyone else does so. And, as I've said, it may also be that I just cant read this yet. I probably haven't given it enough time. But I have to agree with Aindreas that it is missing info. Its probably info that many people don't see or use when they are looking at waveforms, but its there.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:14:45 pm

[Chris Harlan] "But I have to agree with Aindreas that it is missing info. Its probably info that many people don't see or use when they are looking at waveforms, but its there."

Make sure the "Show reference waveforms" option is checked in the prefs.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:16:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "But I have to agree with Aindreas that it is missing info. Its probably info that many people don't see or use when they are looking at waveforms, but its there."

Make sure the "Show reference waveforms" option is checked in the prefs.
"


So there is a way to look at the full waveform? Cool!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:25:39 pm

[Chris Harlan] "So there is a way to look at the full waveform? Cool!"

Not like you expect, no, but it does give you more information than the 'scaled' half form.

Here's a picture with it off:




Here's a picture with it on:



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:39:31 pm

Glad you sent this. I was just in X poking around thinking I was going mad for not seeing what you were talking about. Yes, this view does give you an easier way of judging where the wave passes the baseline, but no asymmetry info. This definitely would not keep me from using X--there are plenty of interesting audio additions--but, for me, the waveform drawings are sup par. I get that it was a valid choice they made--space and mobility over info that only a few people use--but I'm with Aindreas that the waveforms are lacking, though perhaps I disagree that they are a harbinger of the Apocalypse.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:43:11 pm

I will not pretend to be an audio expert. For the most part, I send my audio out to be cleaned by a professional

That being said, audio tools in FCPX are vastly superior to fcp7, waveforms or not.

I would rather have the better tools than the better waveforms.


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:55:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I will not pretend to be an audio expert. For the most part, I send my audio out to be cleaned by a professional

That being said, audio tools in FCPX are vastly superior to fcp7, waveforms or not.

I would rather have the better tools than the better waveforms.
"


Dito. At first I didn't get on with the waveforms, but have really warmed to them. The audio capabilities in the new version, especially when using multiclips is awesome. If you need more tools/ flexibility/functions than available in X (which is much much superior than was ever available in 7) then perhaps you are in the wrong part of the post production process. I have no interest in becoming a sound engineer, I really can't understand the gripes.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:13:15 pm

[craig slattery] "I have no interest in becoming a sound engineer, I really can't understand the gripes."

LOL. The fact that you can't understand other people's gripes doesn't mean that there not legitimate; it simply means that you have no interest in doing so. And that you are being a wee bit condescending about it.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:17:54 pm

there is a small lake of koolaid here methinks - those waveforms are manifestly worse, and analysing waveforms is part of the job. they are compromised imho.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:21:45 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "there is a small lake of koolaid here methinks - those waveforms are manifestly worse, and analysing waveforms is part of the job. they are compromised imho."

That's right Aindreas, dismiss peoples actual experience and opinions as drinking the koolaid, just because we're not agreeing with you.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:31:10 pm

for the love of god - steve those waveforms are worse man. look at them, and ask yourself is that an improvement? vector simplification of the actual waveform into a bunch of little jags?

they are worse. Anyone who is like - how dare you come the high and mighty just because they don't meet your blah blah - forget that stuff. they're worse. a lot worse.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:42:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "they are worse. Anyone who is like - how dare you come the high and mighty just because they don't meet your blah blah - forget that stuff. they're worse. a lot worse.
"


So are you saying, actually that might be worse?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:49:25 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "how dare you come the high and mighty"

I dare, I really dare!

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:56:30 pm

hey - it was you playing the passive aggressive card here, not me.

I say the audio waveforms are unequivocally worse, FCPX moonies jump around banging pots screaming, "you're some kind of audiophile spewing bile"

the bile bit is quoting austin's passive agressive bon mot below.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:07:45 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX moonies jump around banging pots screaming, "

"FCPX Moonies" seriously? are we back to insults then?

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:13:21 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the bile bit is quoting austin's passive agressive bon mot below."

No, I really did just think it was a funny line. I apologize if it came across as an insult or something, that was not my intent. And I do agree that X's waveforms are not as detailed and useful for some tasks. I disagree with the way worse characterization though. Actively. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:15:03 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Aindreas Gallagher] "the bile bit is quoting austin's passive agressive bon mot below."

No, I really did just think it was a funny line. I apologize if it came across as an insult or something, that was not my intent. And I do agree that X's waveforms are not as detailed and useful for some tasks. I disagree with the way worse characterization though. Actively. ;-)
"


I'll go with that too. They're not a deal breaker for me. I just don't like the implementation.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:38:15 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "there is a small lake of koolaid here methinks - those waveforms are manifestly worse, and analysing waveforms is part of the job. they are compromised imho."

I actually prefer a nice glass of KoolAid over a cup of bile. ;-) Leaving aside whether the waveforms contain enough information for a true audiophile... All I know, is that I can do stuff like this:



Please note that the grey bar at the top of the timeline represents a frame...

Edit: Just in case... I'm aware that you can keyframe audio in subframe/sample increments in FCP & and other NLE's. What i like is the ability to trim, select and manipulate (copy/paste etc) ranges, and move entire clips in subframe sample increments. It makes matching beats, dialog etc ridiculously easy....

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:46:56 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I actually prefer a nice glass of KoolAid over a cup of bile. ;-)"

Nice!

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:53:21 pm

good sweet god almighty its not bile.

Look - you can tell me there is anti-gravity in there, and also well done on the passive agressive "audiophile" snark,

you can show me the gates of zanzibar in the audio snapshot.

those.

Waveforms.

Are.

Way.

Worse.

end of.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:59:11 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "those.

Waveforms.

Are.

Way.

Worse.

end of."


You need to open up Aindreas, and tell us what you really think. Don't be shy


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:00:06 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "good sweet god almighty its not bile. "

I know, but the line occurred to me and I sometimes lack self control. C'mon, it was funny. :-)

And yes, X "waveforms" lack some detail compared to a full waveform. But really, it is a trade off. As has been mentioned again and again, despite the lack of a "mixer", the audio editing capabilities built into X are leaps and bounds beyond FCP 7 and most other NLE's. And I really don't think we've seen anything yet...

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:07:37 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you can show me the gates of zanzibar in the audio snapshot.

those.

Waveforms.

Are.

Way.

Worse.

end of.
"


In


Your


Opinion

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 11:13:40 pm

nope, that there is an old fashioned objective fact. they're jagged low information crud.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 11:25:51 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "nope, that there is an old fashioned objective fact. they're jagged low information crud."

Yes I agree

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 30, 2012 at 8:08:09 pm

excellent. boorish hammering of the point does deliver results. who knew?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:56:44 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Leaving aside whether the waveforms contain enough information for a true audiophile... "

C'mon, man. Don't go there. I've got too much respect for you. Just because you don't use or see something in a certain way doesn't mean that other people don't find value in it. You were an audio editor, right? Didn't you ever ask yourself why waves are shaped the way they are or what they could mean? Didn't you develop some sort of understanding of the visual representation that is broken by only showing the outgoing portion of the wave?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:07:25 pm

[Chris Harlan] "[Charlie Austin] "Leaving aside whether the waveforms contain enough information for a true audiophile... "

C'mon, man. Don't go there. I've got too much respect for you. Just because you don't use or see something in a certain way doesn't mean that other people don't find value in it. You were an audio editor, right? Didn't you ever ask yourself why waves are shaped the way they are or what they could mean? Didn't you develop some sort of understanding of the visual representation that is broken by only showing the outgoing portion of the wave?
"


Oh, for sure... It wasn't meant as a dig, and I was kind of including myself in there, though it probably wasn't clear. I guess my point is that the majority of people who use NLE's don't really need to know about that stuff. Most don't know about that stuff. Maybe they should, but the reality is lots of editors don't even know how to mix, let alone analyze waveforms. That's what post facilities are for. :-) I just don't think it's that big of a deal. A very subjective opinion... ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:13:18 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Chris Harlan] "[Charlie Austin] "Leaving aside whether the waveforms contain enough information for a true audiophile... "

C'mon, man. Don't go there. I've got too much respect for you. Just because you don't use or see something in a certain way doesn't mean that other people don't find value in it. You were an audio editor, right? Didn't you ever ask yourself why waves are shaped the way they are or what they could mean? Didn't you develop some sort of understanding of the visual representation that is broken by only showing the outgoing portion of the wave?
"

Oh, for sure... It wasn't meant as a dig, and I was kind of including myself in there, though it probably wasn't clear. I guess my point is that the majority of people who use NLE's don't really need to know about that stuff. Most don't know about that stuff. Maybe they should, but the reality is lots of editors don't even know how to mix, let alone analyze waveforms. That's what post facilities are for. :-) I just don't think it's that big of a deal. A very subjective opinion... ;-)"


Okay. Yeah. I agree completely. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction. As to audio post, I generally prefer what I do to what I get back because I've been building it as I go. And while having a second ear is always a good thing, that 2nd ear generally comes out of my pocket, so I do pay careful attention to my mix.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:20:18 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Okay. Yeah. I agree completely. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction. As to audio post, I generally prefer what I do to what I get back because I've been building it as I go. And while having a second ear is always a good thing, that 2nd ear generally comes out of my pocket, so I do pay careful attention to my mix."

I hear ya. (pun intended) I get pretty detailed with my mixes too. And in the interest of full disclosure, I used to hate sending spots to be mixed, because invariably it wouldn't sound like what I had done. So I'd tweak it, go to mixes, and be the annoying client I always hated when I was a mixer... well, not really, but I was a frame-f**ker, albeit a considerate one, at times. Now? phhtt. If the client's happy and there's no important audio missing, I'm happy. Jaded? Yep. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:07:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I will not pretend to be an audio expert. For the most part, I send my audio out to be cleaned by a professional

That being said, audio tools in FCPX are vastly superior to fcp7, waveforms or not.

I would rather have the better tools than the better waveforms.
"


That's okay. Different strokes for different folks. I agree that SOME of the tools in X are superior in 7. The additions of a valid mixer and a standardized controller interface might convince me that MOST of the tools are superior. Of course, Premiere is currently lacking a controller, as well. So X isn't alone in that.

And, not that you want or care to, but you don't need to be an "audio expert" to get a little more than you currently are out of looking at waveforms. You certainly don't have to--a lot of people don't--but hopefully you won't begrudge people who do.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:17:53 pm

[Chris Harlan] "And, not that you want or care to, but you don't need to be an "audio expert" to get a little more than you currently are out of looking at waveforms. You certainly don't have to--a lot of people don't--but hopefully you won't begrudge people who do."

Not at all, but everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd rather have X than 7 when it comes to audio. I use filters a lot more than the mixer in 7 and the filters in X are much better, much easier to use and manipulate., and now with audio component tools in 10.0.6, I can even see all my audio at once without weird side stepping workflows.

I use audio waveforms for loudness/level, finding beats/hits/whatever peaks and valleys I need to edit music/dialogue.

X's waveforms do not hamper any of my ability, but the overall toolset increases my ability. Saying that Apple engineers have slacked here is a bit sensational and ignores the work that has been done.

And so, the debate rages on.

Aindreas would like FCP7 style waveforms, I'd like to have better tools, even without a mixer. Audio mixing in FCP7 is much more laborious and requires more guess work and rendering.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:46:02 pm

Everything you say, yes. There is no right or wrong to where you are and what you need or want. Its personal taste and specific jobs. We agree. For me, I can live with the waveforms, but don't like them, want a mixer over universal plugins (but would much prefer both) and would very much like to be able to use a controller. I think it was FCP6 that added it, and it was great. It's not that I don't do a lot--even most--of my audio with a mouse, but taking a run at a mix with a controller to get everything just about right, and to better understand the mix, is worthwhile. I do wonder whether a controller is now more difficult to implement with X's underlying structure.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:02:16 pm

[Chris Harlan] "... want a mixer over universal plugins"

I'm amused at how beaten down and humble the editors have become. Because it is just beyond software and hardware to have both a mixer and decent audio plugins ...

[Chris Harlan] "... to be able to use a controller. I think it was FCP6 that added it ..."

I think it was earlier - like 3 or 4 - but that might just be bad memory.

I really don't understand why people do not want to listen while mixing, and champion stop and go, adjust and check, over listen and react (with more than one track! in real time!) I don't doubt that adjusting ranges works for people, I suspect because it is visual, but I want to use my ears for sound and react.

No doubt this will be the same crowd championing a touch interface mixing "revolution" at some point ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:13:39 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm amused at how beaten down and humble the editors have become. Because it is just beyond software and hardware to have both a mixer and decent audio plugins ..."

I really want a mixer, it is a necessary addition going forward and I'll be disappointed if I don't get one in the next few months, either that or a new version of Logic Pro that interchanges with FCPX seamlessly.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 30, 2012 at 7:58:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'd rather have X than 7 when it comes to audio. I use filters a lot more than the mixer in 7 and the filters in X are much better, much easier to use and manipulate., and now with audio component tools in 10.0.6, I can even see all my audio at once without weird side stepping workflows."

yep, I pretty much completely agree with this - I'm hammering the waveforms because I think they could be better, and deserve some hammering. but I'd kill to have the rest of the plugin architecture, live feedback, etc. The overall package is really powerful.

I'm basically making a deal about hammering the audiograph/waveforms things because they deserve to take a public hit I think.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:20:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would rather have the better tools than the better waveforms."

Seems like it would be nice to have both. :-) I'm with Chris here, it's nice to know when you're having DC offset issues.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 9:48:28 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Seems like it would be nice to have both. :-)"

*shakes fist* Both? Ha!


[Shawn Miller] "I'm with Chris here, it's nice to know when you're having DC offset issues."

In X, you can at least SEE what the filters are doing to the audio.

If you are having DC Offset issues in 7, how do you know when it's fixed? Guess and render send it to an updatable waveform that will redraw the proper fix?

Sorry guys, audio in FCPX is better even with worse waveforms.








Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:03:04 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you are having DC Offset issues in 7, how do you know when it's fixed? Guess and render send it to an updatable waveform that will redraw the proper fix?
"


I wouldn't correct it there. I could just see it.

But this all getting out of hand. And people are getting angry at each other over their personal preferences. So I think maybe its time for me to just butt out.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:17:27 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I wouldn't correct it there. I could just see it. "

Got ya.

[Chris Harlan] "But this all getting out of hand. And people are getting angry at each other over their personal preferences. So I think maybe its time for me to just butt out."

I'm not angry. I'm just curious as to how the waveforms in 7 are so much better that it negates all that is good in FCPX. It doesn't seem to add up for me.

When I add a compressor or limiter in X, i can see what's happening. I find that to be more useful than FCP7s waveforms which are not active.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:28:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm not angry. I'm just curious as to how the waveforms in 7 are so much better that it negates all that is good in FCPX. It doesn't seem to add up for me.
"


It doesn't. Not at all. Its just a weak link. Lack of a mixer is a far weaker link. Neither undermine, in my estimation, the dramatic advances in other areas of audio.


[Jeremy Garchow] "When I add a compressor or limiter in X, i can see what's happening. I find that to be more useful than FCP7s waveforms which are not active."

Yes. Plugin implementation in 7 is/was crap. I could comfortably use pitch shift as well EQ, but almost any other audio program is preferable. Generally if I have to do anything other than a change in pitch or an easy blocking of certain frequencies, I export and work on it in Logic or ProTools or STpro.

So, yes; three steps forward, one step back. No argument that it is moving forward.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 10:31:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "Seems like it would be nice to have both. :-)"

*shakes fist* Both? Ha!"


LOL - sorry man, I obviously need to pick. :-)

[Jeremy Garchow] "In X, you can at least SEE what the filters are doing to the audio."

And that's a good thing. It's one of the features I miss about Vegas.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you are having DC Offset issues in 7, how do you know when it's fixed? Guess and render send it to an updatable waveform that will redraw the proper fix?"

Possibly, I've never used FCP. Though this is very easy to fix in PPro and Audition... but it would be nice to be able to do right on the PPro timeline (like FCPX).

[Jeremy Garchow] "Sorry guys, audio in FCPX is better even with worse waveforms."

I'll take your word for it. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 8:47:13 pm

[Chris Harlan] "though perhaps I disagree that they are a harbinger of the Apocalypse.
"


Well, December 21st is fast approaching!

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 12:15:00 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "we all know that waveform is nearly unusable - why exactly in the hell is no one really saying this?"

Because, as Steve said, it's not unusable. In fact, editing audio in X is pretty damn awesome. Being able to manipulate stuff down to the sample level is really nice. I can cut music and frankenstein dialog bits together better than I ever could in 7.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 12:17:19 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "sure god, franz, would you like to expand please?"

Aindreas,

Apparently I made this up in my sleep. Some time ago.

They're called rectified waveforms and defined thusly:

"Rectified waveforms are displayed so that their positive and negative waveform excursions (the portions that fall above and below the center line) are summed together and viewed as a single positive-value signal."

Non-Rectified versions still seem more useful for detailed work, while rectified views may be more useful for volume work.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 29, 2012 at 12:23:56 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Non-Rectified versions still seem more useful for detailed work, while rectified views may be more useful for volume work."

so this then anyway.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Fabrizio D'Agnano
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:41:40 pm

I've just made the switch to FCP X, and I'm cutting my first two documentaries on it. I am not an early hour enthusiast. I had FCP X sitting for about one year with only occasional brief tests, and I was upset as many others about FCP X not being FCP8. I am a free-lance producer shooting and editing outdoors documentaries that are broadcasted by a satellite TV channel, about 12 per year, so there are no variables between now and one or two months ago, apart from the fact I'm a bit older :-). I am finding my FCP X experience great so far. The work, up to now, have been faster. I'd say quite faster. On a wild guess in the rough cut stage i'd say 30%. If I had to explain what makes it actually faster for me, I'd answer everything. The media organization is great. I still feel I could make much better once I arrange a tailored use of events and keywords, but it served me fine so far. The skimming is something I really appreciated, since I have to constantly move among a lot of footage looking for those few seconds. In my line of work I can't plan and organize the shooting before playing rec, so I end up with a lot of footage I have to check later for those few seconds that are actually good. Skimming is great at that. Importing is faster, and I find that with no rendering timeouts I work better (I edit on an early 2008 MP and today I could playback three layers with graphics and alpha with no problems). The ability to review and store native clips that are much smaller is great when you work in the fields with a MBP for one or two weeks, and it is as well when you need to archive. And I also got to like the magnetic timeline. Now that I think about it, that and the new timeline tools are maybe the things that made the work faster and easier so far. I have not gone deep into the audio yet, but so far I found it easier to quickly evaluate the levels visually, plus I like fading audio just sliding the two handles instead than placing keyframes. Once I find out how to export a four channels IMX maybe using the roles (I need to deliver two stereo tracks with full mix down and two tracks with all sounds but voiceover for international use), I think I'll give my beloved FCP7 some rest after 8 years, and I'll be more than happy not having to move back to PC. All those "so far" are there because I haven't finished any of the two documentaries yet. A couple of things I'd appreciate could be giving the clips a different color for each role, since the roles FCP X automatically assigns are not always right and that could be crucial if you need to export international versions with no titles or voiceover, and a small icon in the browser list view. It would also be great to have clips already used in the project somehow automatically marked in the browser.

Fabrizio D'Agnano
Rome, Italy


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:25:46 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you may actually be surprised on how long that one plays out I think"

Trust me!

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And fwiw Premiere is coming up on Mandy pretty regularly lately. FCPX still whistling past the graveyard in total silence job posting wise - a guy on here did a trawl through grapevine, Mandy, prod.base there a week or two ago - not a single FCPX bean. "

Big changes ahead in Broadcast. The penny has dropped. keep an eye out for in-house FCPX training


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:41:37 pm

nope mate, I trust you to present an argument though ;)

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:53:09 pm

[craig slattery] "Plus the new black Comedy by British director Dan Wheatley, Sightseers. "

I'm sure it's a great programme you've cut - but the director of Sightseers is Ben Wheatley.

Not "Dan".

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:24 pm

Thanks Simon, school boy error. Thankfully only on this post.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 28, 2012 at 11:02:53 pm

[craig slattery] "Thanks Simon, school boy error. Thankfully only on this post."

I only mention it because he's the most exciting director working in the UK today - Kill List is essential viewing, as is Sightseers.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

jon smitherton
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 30, 2012 at 3:33:41 am

Tis funny people complaining about audio waveforms.
Just wait to you try Avid.
The whole reason I've tried to stay away from it being an engineer becoming an editor. The redraw is just ridiculous - it doesn't seem to cache properly. And they own Pro Tools.
I remember asking an old school editor (I've been editing for 18 years, him 30) how he'd see the next grab - he said 'I hear a sound then go back 7 frames and cut it there'.
At least since vers 5.5 you can turn on the tracks waveform individually instead of doing custom timeline presets. If you've got an hour show redrawing the whole timeline, it'll take round 30 secs - suppose you can plug the 'wish we had FCP7' or 'we should try FCPX' while you twiddle your thumbs with the director whilst trying to turn it off and not trying to invoke a crash.
Being limited to 24 mono tracks now in 6.5 is better, still find in a large layup that I'm trying to avoid having just these voices on, with disregard to my engineers preferred track allocation. What will Walter Murch do now with limited audio voices if he decides to change back?

Jon



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 30, 2012 at 1:35:19 pm

Wait, I thought fcpx was the only imperfect piece of software?

this

changes

everything

:-D


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Nov 30, 2012 at 8:18:28 pm

[jon smitherton] "Just wait to you try Avid. "

Oh, I agree. The limited number of audio tracks is one of Avid's biggest drawbacks. And the time it can take for waveforms to redrawn on long timelines can be very annoying unless you have "Show Marked Waveforms" enabled. I don't know if you know about that option, since you left it out of your discussion above, but its a very useful option that I'd like to se on other NLEs. When its enabled you only see waveforms between the in and out points. It doesn't completely make up for the sluggish redraw, but its nice to have selective waveforms on both individual tracks (as you mentioned above) and for limited time (Show Marked Waveforms.)


Return to posts index

jon smitherton
Re: 2005-fcp 5, 2012-fcpX
on Dec 3, 2012 at 12:10:43 pm

[Chris Harlan] "it can take for waveforms to redrawn on long timelines can be very annoying unless you have "Show Marked Waveforms" enabled. I don't know if you know about that option, since you left it out of your discussion above, but its a very useful option that I'd like to se on other NLEs"

Thanks Chris didn't know about this one.
Takes a while on Avid to work out all the idiosyncrasies as a lot are hidden in menus and settings, like changing to drop-frame tc and making audio tracks stereo.

Jon



Return to posts index

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