FORUMS: list search recent posts

Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Shane Ross
Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 6:45:57 pm

...was great! He showed off the power, and pointed out some of the shortcomings. But most of all, he's convinced me that I need to keep my eye on FCP-X. Not use it yet....but see it's potential. It has a lot going for it, and soon might be all that.

If they get tracks back and drop the stupid magnetic timeline!! Or make it an option to use tracks. Tracks are just too dang useful...and needed for what I do.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 7:33:13 pm

[Shane Ross] "If they get tracks back and drop the stupid magnetic timeline!! Or make it an option to use tracks. Tracks are just too dang useful...and needed for what I do."

Not to hijack the thread (he said while hijacking it...) but specifically what is it you can't do in X without tracks? Not being combative or anything, I'm just genuinely curious. You've probably posted about it before, but I can't seem to find it... :-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 7:39:33 pm

Not having used FCP-X since 10.0.1 (before Roles)...I might be a little behind the times. BUT...

Easily organize what tracks are your SFX tracks, DIA tracks, MUSIC tracks...so you can see what is where. When you need to adjust things, knowing it is SFX and knowing exactly where that is saves time. Guessing as to where that might be ("is this small clip it? no...how about this?")...searthing the...uh...trackless area for what might be the clip takes time.

And it's just cluttered and messy. Completely disorganized. I'm used to having between 16 and 48 tracks of audio. And assigning audio to specific tracks helps me keep track of it. If it's all helter skeleter all over the place...it's madness.

All this touting of metadata to track things, and how it is highly organized...yet the clips are all a jumble all over the place (video too)...messy.

VIdeo tracks...we do the same thing. Footage on tracks 1-3...text on track 5...stills on track4...or whatever arrangement. SO we can easily spot what is where.

My main thing is that I work in long form, and many people acknowledge that FCP-X isn't quite ready for long form in any stable way. But lacking tracks is HUGE. I just can't wrap my head around not having them.

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


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:13:51 pm

[Shane Ross] "Not having used FCP-X since 10.0.1 (before Roles)...I might be a little behind the times. BUT...

Easily organize what tracks are your SFX tracks, DIA tracks, MUSIC tracks...so you can see what is where. When you need to adjust things, knowing it is SFX and knowing exactly where that is saves time. Guessing as to where that might be ("is this small clip it? no...how about this?")...searthing the...uh...trackless area for what might be the clip takes time....
And it's just cluttered and messy. Completely disorganized. I'm used to having between 16 and 48 tracks of audio. And assigning audio to specific tracks helps me keep track of it. If it's all helter skeleter all over the place...it's madness.


I hear ya... Roles really do take care of most of that, except for the messy part. ;-) Hopefully they'll implement Role grouping to address that. However, the organization and ablity to find stuff is, IMHO, leaps and bounds above any track based system, provided you set your source clip Roles up in the Event. It takes about 2 seconds, and can be done on timeline clips, but if the sources are "assigned" correctly it's essentially pre-patched for you. I too use a ton of tracks and finding specific bits in X is ludicrously easy. Just Highlight the Role you're looking for in the index:


And you get this:


Which, for me, beats the crap out of counting down say, 16 tracks from the top to get to what I need.

Click the little expansion arrow:


And just the clips I want open up for editing:


And with clip skimming turned on, all I need to do is hoverscrub, for lack of a better term, and I can hear just that clip without needing to solo it. Of course I can solo it, and add nearby clips to the solo group etc. It works way better than clip soloing in 7. Not sure about Avid... been a couple years since I cut on that...


[Shane Ross] VIdeo tracks...we do the same thing. Footage on tracks 1-3...text on track 5...stills on track4...or whatever arrangement. SO we can easily spot what is where.

Well, roles do give you the same options here, and clip skimming is freaking awesome for video too if you have a pile of clips composited and want to quickly see only the clip in the middle of the pile. Again, grouping roles would (will?) help out a lot here as well.

[Shane Ross] My main thing is that I work in long form, and many people acknowledge that FCP-X isn't quite ready for long form in any stable way. But lacking tracks is HUGE. I just can't wrap my head around not having them.
"


Fair point, though there was a poster here who said Apple had contacted him to figure it how to make long form work better, which is encouraging. It does take some serious "head wrapping" lol, but It's not bad at all once you're wrapped. I'm looking forward to seeing what's next!

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


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:18:56 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I hear ya... Roles really do take care of most of that, except for the messy part. ;-) Hopefully they'll implement Role grouping to address that"

Colour coding Roles would be useful here

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:39:45 pm

[Steve Connor] "Colour coding Roles would be useful here"

Absolutely. Color coding, grouping, maybe some sort of Z-order type thing, especially for video, and as pointed out below, maybe the ability to mix roles as a group. Not sure how that last will work. Personally I don't miss riding faders, but many people do. Range selection and KB volume adjustment works well for me, but the mixing aspect of X could certainly use some improvement...

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


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


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:41:31 pm

[Charlie Austin] "ersonally I don't miss riding faders, but many people do. Range selection and KB volume adjustment works well for me, but the mixing aspect of X could certainly use some improvement..."

I can live without them but it would be nice to have a mixer sometimes. Let's see what the next major update or Logic Pro X brings

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:03:26 pm

[Steve Connor] "I can live without them but it would be nice to have a mixer sometimes. Let's see what the next major update or Logic Pro X brings"

Yeah... I can't remember the last program that I was so eager to see what the next update brings. ;-)

What I've been doing for, say, a complex music bed, is getting a cut and rough mix with the loose clips, then sticking them in a compound clip to get the overall mix. This works really well, (with one caveat) and maybe that's how a "mixer" in X would work. Use CC's as stems and be able to mix them live. Maybe a "mix role" could get assigned? I dunno.

The caveat, however, is if you need to make changes to the cut. You can open the CC in it's own timeline of course, but it's impossible to edit anything relative to the picture because you can't see it... the CC is it's own thing once you're in it. If they could make it so that "stepping in" to a CC still showed you where you were in the "master" timeline. i.e.you could still see the video to which the CC clip was cut, that would be huge.

I also want a pony. lol ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:49:39 pm

See? With no lines showing tracks...that looks like a mass of bubbles floating in space. What a MESS!! What a disorganized pile that is. Sound just scattered on the floor like a bunch of Legos. Waiting to be stepped on.

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


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:11:52 pm

[Shane Ross] "See? With no lines showing tracks...that looks like a mass of bubbles floating in space. What a MESS!! What a disorganized pile that is. Sound just scattered on the floor like a bunch of Legos. Waiting to be stepped on."

LOL. yeah, but with one little click I can see exactly what's what, not just bunch of little rectangles separated by lines. ;-) Honestly, I totally get what you're saying, but let's play the devils advocate for a sec. If you give your 48 track "tracked" project to another editor, and for some reason aren't able to give them a track sheet, how the hell would they know what's what? In X, it's all right there, click the role and you see it. Role grouping would solve the "big mess" part, and I hope it appears.

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


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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:14:46 pm

Agree completely. But I think the conversation above hints at the solution. With Roles data already assigned for each clip, the timeline should be able to sort these elements into horizontal "zones" which contain as many overlapping elements as exist in a single Role. Organized by user-set colour in a user-defined order. At the very least more like this:

http://www.hoverboy.com/Timeline.jpg


What I think would be even more amazing would be to be able to collapse and expand roles so you can concentrate on the sound elements you're worried about, or as someone above theorized, step INTO a Role and only see those elements.

And with Roles, you're not just restricted to DIALOGUE or SFX, you can have sub-Roles for DIA-MARY and DIA JIM, or SFX-GUNSHOTS, etc. etc... So you can create as many organizational layers as you like.

But those individual audio elements are still linked to their primary storyline elements [unlike when they're inside a CC]



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:47:49 pm

[Marcus Moore] "...the timeline should be able to sort these elements into horizontal "zones" which contain as many overlapping elements as exist in a single Role. Organized by user-set colour in a user-defined order. At the very least more like this:

What I think would be even more amazing would be to be able to collapse and expand roles so you can concentrate on the sound elements you're worried about, or as someone above theorized, step INTO a Role and only see those elements...

...But those individual audio elements are still linked to their primary storyline elements [unlike when they're inside a CC]"


From your keyboard to Apple's ears. You should paste that post into the feedback form. :-) Hopefully that's where they're going, it seems doable given what Roles can already do. We'll see...

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


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


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 7:56:20 am

May look that way but having just finished my first high profile gig in FCPX I have to say I didn't miss tracks at all. The positives far outweigh the negatives and based on the amount of features and fixes in each update we've seen I have no doubt that FCPX has a very bright future...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:14:52 pm

[Shane Ross] "My main thing is that I work in long form, and many people acknowledge that FCP-X isn't quite ready for long form in any stable way"

Many people who haven't actually used FCPX for long form!

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:28:44 pm

I second Shane's remarks and add my perennial plea for a real time, records keyframes mixer.

It's in virtually every other NLE including legacy...we use it every day, every hour.. and I still can't see how editors actually prefer adding keyframes by hand for every volume change and duck.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 1:19:45 am

Andy.
Want to duck or raise a specific bit of audio inan X Storyline?
Tap R ( the range tool) then drag to define a selection (or mark an in and out if you need to be precise)
Then with the range defined - click on the audio level line and raise or lower it to taste.
Know what happens?
X automatically creates a key framed level adjustment with four control points. If the incoming or outgoing sports aren't what you like. You can edit them at will.
It's four times less work than having to create them by hand if the default meets your needs, while losing nothing in productivity if you want to tweak things.
The point is that how X actually works is kinda the polar opposite of your phrase "I still can't see how editors actually prefer adding key frames by hand for every volume change and duck."
I truly don't mind criticism of X based on how it really works.
I am a bit wary of criticism of it based on how people who don't use or understand it *imagine* it works based often on reading on-line criticism from others who perhaps also don't know how it works.
Look, I'm still learning a lot of it's capabilities after months and months abd months of using nothing else to edit with.
It's surprisingly deep since all it is is just iMovie Pro, after all! (insert non snarky grin and wink here)
FWIW

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 1:29:43 am

[Bill Davis] "The point is that how X actually works is kinda the polar opposite of your phrase "I still can't see how editors actually prefer adding key frames by hand for every volume change and duck."
I truly don't mind criticism of X based on how it really works."


To be fair, I think he was referring to manually keyframing audio vs. riding a fader. Riding a fader and creating keyframes on the fly can be a lot faster than doing it manually, particularly when you've got deep multi track (layer) sound beds. Hopefully this will reappear in some form or other.

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


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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 3:19:38 am

[Charlie Austin] "To be fair, I think he was referring to manually keyframing audio vs. riding a fader."

OK, fair point.

But I suppose it's also fair to recall that "audio console automation" style key framing reflecting physical surface controls didn't start appearing in Premier or AVID until years down their development cycles. Anyone recall how many versions either of them shipped before they got the side chain control I/O worked out to reflect a physical device status back to the software implementation in real time?

I sure as heck didn't see anything like that in Legacy in 1999-2005 to the best of my knowledge.

So it seems to me that it hasn't been a very high priority for the initial release of ANY NLE.

I know it's tempting to simply take a snapshot of where our current software is after a full decade of development and expect THAT to be the SQUARE ONE state of anything new. But I just don't think that's reasonable. At least not if you want software engineers to ADVANCE the art at the same time.

Code takes time to write, test and perfect.

Oddly, at the LA thing yesterday, someone in the crowd asked Dan Leibental (who was demo'ing an iPad app for editors) how many coders were working on it. I think his answer was a small bunch - then he specifically opined that simply adding more coders doesn't necessarily add more speed and efficiency to a software development effort - and can actually hurt things since it can become more and more difficult for all the members of a large coding team to keep the "big picture" stuff clearly in mind.

I remember thinking it was a little like the classic question: if it takes one woman nine months to have a baby, how long should it take four women?

FWIW

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 5:11:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "I know it's tempting to simply take a snapshot of where our current software is after a full decade of development and expect THAT to be the SQUARE ONE state of anything new. But I just don't think that's reasonable. At least not if you want software engineers to ADVANCE the art at the same time. Code takes time to write, test and perfect. "

This is an oft repeated assertion of yours and I don't think it holds up. New software in any field is measured against the current standards of competing products. When Word was introduced as the first WYSIWYG word processor, every other new WP had to come up to that standard. After it's introduction you couldn't introduce a new word processor that lacked that ability and say - well it took 10 years to come up with this, give us some time and we'll have it too.

The state of the art in everything is advancing. When new products come to market it is only fair that they be measured against current standards - or else why bring them to market?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 8:12:31 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The state of the art in everything is advancing. When new products come to market it is only fair that they be measured against current standards - or else why bring them to market?"

I think the point Bill is trying to make is that, and I realize everyone feels differently about this, there are things that FCPX does that are farther advanced than FCP7. They are the nuts and bolts back end of the software upon which everything else stems from and built upon.

There are other things that aren't quite there and haven't had as much attention put to them.

To put in this in real terms, the organizational capabilities of FCPX, as well as mass categorization and sorting, searching and tagging, are leaps and bound beyond fcp7. Bundle exporting, multichannel/stem exporting, multiclip setup, sync and adjustments, color correction quality and control (despite some hating the color board) are also big plussed up features over FCP7, not to mention proxy/high quality transcoding, editing, and creation

The editing interface isn't perfect yet. It gets better with every release.

So while some of the new features aren't where fcp7 was, there are many more that certainly could be teeing up what might be a great NLE once there's some time devoted to better interface control.

Starting over truly means starting over.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 2:18:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "The editing interface isn't perfect yet."

understatement. The fact that holding the tilde key is keeping the unintended delete/drift/it all goes mad beasts at bay is a very unusual feature.

I am gone beyond deliberately acknowledging the strengths of the software - but the pick up professionally is meagre - there was a post here recently on the strangle hold professional practise has on educational choices - and please let no one make a decade old comparison to FCP.

now is actually now. FCP 1.0 in 99 provides no guidance. Apple need to restate the timeline somehow - I'm inclined to think a lot of people could warm rapidly to the footage interrogation, next gen native masking, surreal effects performance, and overall shining new code, if we didn't all think the timeline was a basket case.

with a tilde key modifier to make it a slightly less basket case.

one way or another, its nearly two years now, for a very odd nodal parent child timeline, that bears no resemblance to anything in use, and it feels hard to see actual realistic likelihood of serious industry adoption? Given the hardened opinions?

I'm not slagging - I just currently don't see how it happens - unless of course, we get announcements.

As ever I kind of personally feel the PPro vector is more likely to win the FCP space. the Associated Press shift kind of was a thing. If only because the road testing is going to be gigantic there.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 3:28:17 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "As ever I kind of personally feel the PPro vector is more likely to win the FCP space. the Associated Press shift kind of was a thing. If only because the road testing is going to be gigantic there."

I guess you and I feel differently that the fcpx timeline has to look and operate like fcp7s timeline.

FCPX's grouping of relative clips makes perfect sense to me. Sure, aspects of it could be better, same as aspects of fcp7 could be better.

It did take time to get used to it, it didn't make sense at first, but it does now and the added features help tremendously.

I'm sure development hasn't stopped, I'm sure more features will be added, and I'm sure there will be more bugs as well, just like every other active NLE on the planet. There will also be plenty more tilde key like releases where one key stroke solves many workarounds.

If I was a big broadcaster, I'd be silly not to look. It runs amazingly well on light hardware, provides fantastic quality, serves as a decent file flipper, has SAN Locations built in, rudimentary but decent media management, and once the concepts are grasped, proves very fast to use.

Adobe has fantastic things going. One thing it doesn't (currently) have, at least in my view, is a decent multiseat environment, or online/offline, or start in one location move to another location without a decent amount of grief. Fcp7 could be brute forced into submission through its structure, Premiere doesn't have it quite yet at least in my little opinion. They announced to be working on it with Anywhere so we'll see where it goes.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 4:09:54 pm

"If we didn't all think the timeline was a basket case", Some great posts recently Aindreas, they've generated some great discussion, it's nice to see the old favourites back though.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 5:26:27 pm

[Steve Connor] "it's nice to see the old favourites back though."

Yep... And the thing is... some of we actually like the X timeline. Hard to believe, but true. ;-) I get the criticism, I disagree with it, but I get it. But when you really start to work with it though, and get to the point where you're not trying to fight it, it's really nice. Not perfect yet, but very pleasant. :-)

i had to start a project in FCP 7 last week because I need to be able to bounce it back and forth with other editors who are still on 7. It's painful. Honestly, the only things "missing" from the X timeline, for me, are the ability to group roles, and minimize storylines. Any other stuff is icing on the cake.

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


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 8:25:18 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Honestly, the only things "missing" from the X timeline, for me, are the ability to group roles, and minimize storylines. Any other stuff is icing on the cake.
"


+1 on that.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 9:19:01 pm

[Charlie Austin] "i had to start a project in FCP 7 last week because I need to be able to bounce it back and forth with other editors who are still on 7. It's painful. Honestly, the only things "missing" from the X timeline, for me, are the ability to group roles, and minimize storylines. Any other stuff is icing on the cake.
"


Oddly enough, the pain you are referring to is what I feel, these days, when I move from Symphony back to FCP. It was actually sort of a shock; I've been cutting promos in Symphony for a while now, and I had to move back to FCP to cut a couple of big Sizzles. What actually shocked me was the level I resented being back in the program. I've gotten very used to the Avid approach, have a tight system down, and found myself very frustrated to be back in FCP. And, it struck me--this is what the X folks are talking about. And a lot of it is the little details: color-coding tracks, the snappiness of the trimming keys, trimming while looping, sharing/exporting bins, the source timeline, the ease of using timelines as as source material, easily collapsable/hide tracks (I LOVE this feature) , waveforms in selection only. Once you get used to the little niceties, you begin to resent their absence in other platforms.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 27, 2013 at 12:30:12 am

[Chris Harlan] "Oddly enough, the pain you are referring to is what I feel, these days, when I move from Symphony back to FCP. It was actually sort of a shock; I've been cutting promos in Symphony for a while now, and I had to move back to FCP to cut a couple of big Sizzles. What actually shocked me was the level I resented being back in the program. I've gotten very used to the Avid approach, have a tight system down, and found myself very frustrated to be back in FCP. And, it struck me--this is what the X folks are talking about. And a lot of it is the little details: color-coding tracks, the snappiness of the trimming keys, trimming while looping, sharing/exporting bins, the source timeline, the ease of using timelines as as source material, easily collapsable/hide tracks (I LOVE this feature) , waveforms in selection only. Once you get used to the little niceties, you begin to resent their absence in other platforms."

You have succinctly qualified The Legend of FCP Legend™©®.

Nice work, Chris. This is awesome.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 12:48:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "There are other things that aren't quite there and haven't had as much attention put to them."

Fair enough. But every NLE has strengths and weaknesses, they are all steadily improving, as is the state of the art. All I'm saying is that X does not get a free pass for it's inefficiencies any more that it should be ignored for it's strengths; this "it's totally new, wait till it grows up" argument does not pass muster. If someone brings a new toaster to market, no matter how revolutionary, but it lacks a timer, it's fair to point it out. Yes, maybe the manufacturer will fix that in the next model, or maybe they won't, but for right now if you use it you'll burn your toast.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 2:17:53 pm

[Herb Sevush] " All I'm saying is that X does not get a free pass for it's inefficiencies any more that it should be ignored for it's strengths; this "it's totally new, wait till it grows up" argument does not pass muster"

You think fcpx has had a free pass? I sure don't. Apple has been taking industry wide public uppercuts to the chin since the NAB Supermeet hostile take over, and that was obviously by choice.

And yes, the first few releases were certainly burning toast, but it is in much better shape now and it has stemmed from further development of where it started, and not necessarily making it work like fcp7. This type of development takes time, and Apple is doing what Apple does; they start over from a basic set of core functionality and build up around it over time learning from users/developers where the bugs need to be squashed while simultaneously developing those core functions.

No doubt it was a paid beta release, but they haven't charged for more functionality since the first day it went on sale.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 6:22:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple has been taking industry wide public uppercuts to the chin since the NAB Supermeet hostile take over, and that was obviously by choice."

That is my entire point, that it was by choice. Much of the criticism is unfounded and ignorant but in the larger sense it is not unfair, it is the cost of doing business the way apple chose to do it.

This part of the Thread was started by an observation about the lack of control surfaces for audio editing in X. The simple statement that "something like that might be added in the future" is reasonable, the statement that "because X is so new they haven't had time to get around to it and it will surely come" is just a lot of unnecessary unjustified baloney.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 7:06:55 pm

[Herb Sevush] " the statement that "because X is so new they haven't had time to get around to it and it will surely come" is just a lot of unnecessary unjustified baloney."

Haven't had time to get around to it is certainly not the right thing to say.

It simply hasn't been developed yet, or there is simply no hook for it at this point. The software isn't ready.

I don't think it's because Apple forgot or because they are lazy, I think it's because they started over and hooks like that still need to be written and redesigned.

But first, they have to make sure the rest of the application is working before introducing a potential bug path.

A control surface extends current functionality, right? They add more buttons, give tactile control, etc. FCPX certainly has the button part pretty well on its way, but since there's nothing like a color wheel or audio fader in the actual program, how could a control surface interface be written at this point in time?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 6:04:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Yes, maybe the manufacturer will fix that in the next model, or maybe they won't, but for right now if you use it you'll burn your toast."

(lunch break)

But Herb, that's the central point. X puts out BEAUTIFUL toast. Right now. Fast and easy. The problem is that some folks haven't taken the time to read the instructions on how to set up and operate the toaster - so they feel justified in trashing it. Or they don't like that the "toast color" adjustment is a slider rather than a dial and has a way to store color preference by user in a database that takes some time to setup properly - and that's fine. But they extrapolate this to mean the toaster is crap - and the people getting great toast out of it simply belie that view..

If, as Aindreas is always arguing - X truly ONLY is capable of putting out burnt toast, there wouldn't be much discussion here. Cuz, nobody defends edit software that can't edit.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 28, 2013 at 2:04:15 pm

[Bill Davis] " X puts out BEAUTIFUL toast."

That's one of my favorite quotes of the week.

But seriously Bill, we seem to be having one of our failures to communicate. I openly acknowledge and affirm that FCPX is a fully powered, professional NLE capable of producing excellent work in many workflows. There, feel better?

My argument is solely with your oft repeated refrain, whenever someone points out a particular flaw in X, in this case it's inability to work with control surfaces, that it took years for FCP Legend to get up to speed, X is a brand new bit of code, and therefore given time it will do everything anybody comes up with.

Enough with this gobbledygook already. X is what it is right now, just like any other NLE. Apple has already delivered on all it's promised upgrades. Whatever direction the software will take in the future is pure speculation. The argument that it's too new to be judged on it's own merits contradicts the idea that it should be taken seriously right now - you can't have it both ways.

FCPX may one day get to use control surfaces or it may not, nothing about FCP Legend's development is in any way a predictor of this outcome.

To understand more about the logic of predictions I would recommend "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver. You might become a little less sure of what you think is coming down the pike.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 9:49:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The state of the art in everything is advancing. When new products come to market it is only fair that they be measured against current standards - or else why bring them to market?"

Herb,

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the "brief" for FCP-X was to do another version of a traditonal NLE that would be designed to work on the a class of machines that formed a defacto "standard" across an industry.

But that's NOT what happened.

Look AVID and PPro both have evolved and they've had to manage changes in core technology in their areas - and each time, it takes months if not years for quality new features to evolve for the new platforms. Why isn't X given that same latitude? I get the marketing issue. They called it FCP-X as if it was the tenth iteration of the same program. But that was clearly Marketing not wanting to lose the brand recognition and cachet. No different from Ford producing a 2012 "Mustang" and everyone understanding it's a totally re-desitned device compared to the original. That's just business 101.

X was gutted and re-built to run on a fresh new OS-X - with access to a suite of brand new core services that themselves totally supplanted the old Quicktime framework replacing it with a whole fresh approach to foundational graphics and audio processing.

It's not like Apple could run an ad for "engineers highly experienced in Core Video coding" since they'd just recently INVENTED the Core Video and Core Graphics approaches that are at the heart of FCP-X.

So you may not feel they should have some evolution time to perfect things - but I absolutely do.

And I think they're doing a remarkable job based on the constant improvement in the software since its release.

My 2 cents anyway.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 12:59:23 pm

[Bill Davis] "Look AVID and PPro both have evolved and they've had to manage changes in core technology in their areas - and each time, it takes months if not years for quality new features to evolve for the new platforms. Why isn't X given that same latitude?"

Because we're not talking about "new features" were talking about industry standard features that should have been included before the first release. It was Apple's choice to release Beta software and charge for it, they get the money, they get the criticism.

[Bill Davis] "They called it FCP-X as if it was the tenth iteration of the same program. But that was clearly Marketing not wanting to lose the brand recognition and cachet. No different from Ford producing a 2012 "Mustang" and everyone understanding it's a totally re-desitned device compared to the original. That's just business 101."

But if Ford released their 2012 Mustang and it lacked air-conditioning, ABS brakes, and electric windows, they would have been laughed out of the market.

Apple made a business choice to mislead the public with their branding, they also made a choice to release beta quality software as finished. Apple made a lot of money doing this, as you've pointed out, but they've also created a lot of enmity. This anger is not unfair, in my opinion, it was the obvious cost of doing business the way they chose to conduct it. Only time will tell if the short term gains they achieved will be worth it.

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 28, 2013 at 3:24:32 pm

Bill - I rarely use an outboard control surface , for the most part I just use the software mixer built into FCP since I think version 2 or 3......

using your metric we are at version 7 for FCPx....but that's not the point....virtually every NLE has an automation mixer built in the software....it's simply too clunky and time consuming mixing subtle nat sound and music peaks and valleys with a key frame pen tool - that's X (ten) giant steps backward.

The rest of FCP X is useful but the audio is a deal breaker for every day use

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 28, 2013 at 5:26:56 pm

[Andy Field] "virtually every NLE has an automation mixer built in the software....it's simply too clunky and time consuming mixing subtle nat sound and music peaks and valleys with a key frame pen tool - that's X (ten) giant steps backward."

To be fair, though, Pr's mixer is track and not clip based, so the automation is only useful on a locked picture.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 27, 2013 at 6:52:32 pm

Bill, I in fact do and have used the program but your work around to a true mixer still involves a lot of by hand key frame tweaking for a real mix. Subtle volume changes in music for emphasis and silence require real time mixing. That's not a one "range click" and you're done issue.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 7:50:42 pm

Thank you.
I had a lot of fun.
It was great to put faces to a few names from here.
We bicker a lot here, which is kinda fun sometimes, but it's also good to remember that behind the easily misinterpret able typing are real people.
In fact my biggest disappointment last night was getting slightly "rental car lost" and being the last guy at the mile long table for food after the event. Turned out OK cuz I was down there in Siberia across from primary presenter, IronMan editor Dan Lebenthol who has some great stories about his early days cutting Snoop Dog and NWA music videos. But being stuck at the end of the mile long table I didn't get to spend more time with more people. Which I regret.
But it was a fun evening.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:11:33 pm

Most of the users/switchers came from FCP 7. Knowing that you use Avid Shane (as do I) was there anything that you saw in X that you felt was a huge leap over MC 6 in terms of workflow efficiency?


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 8:31:16 pm

[David Powell] "Knowing that you use Avid Shane (as do I) was there anything that you saw in X that you felt was a huge leap over MC 6 in terms of workflow efficiency?"

FCX has built into it something akin to Pluraleyes...using audio waveforms to automatically sync the footage...lacking that, Bill said there were like 4 other ways to sync as well. So that speeds things up. Being able to see all 16 cameras at once is big. Avid has 4 and 9 camera options.

A BIG thing is being able to add angles to the multiclip later...not having to redo the clip. And have single "tracks" for cameras that start and stop. Although if you use the automated feature it will spread out the angles...so I hear from another friend of mine that used it on a music video.

Bill had the project playing from a single 1TB FW100 small external drive. Frames dropped, sure, but it all played back without stopping.

And then the main issue of the fact that FCX is all new software...new code from the ground up. Avid is stacking new on the old. It is slow, it is bulky...it's a beast! It needs a complete re-write too. Issue there is that the dinosaurs of our industry resist change of any kind. One didn't want to change the look of the IN and OUT markers to something more curved and cool. "No! They look fine now. Leave them alone." I bet he wanted the weightlifter to stay too. Avid has to contend with a huge base of people who don't want change, and the flocks of people who want change. Tough balance.

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


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:21:48 pm

I remember a number of years ago before switching to FCP, being shouted down on an Avid forum for suggesting that the bins should actually be folders and thus allow folders within folders - I know radical, huh?

The problem is Avid can't move forward because their user base will not tolerate even the slightest change no matter if it makes sense or not. I've put my money on FCP X. Into my second edit on it, I do find somethings about the timeline confusing, but it hasn't been anything that has significantly slowed me down.



Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:26:52 pm

Well, as Bill often says, "you have to forget editing like you used to. FCP-X is a new beast and requires new thinking." Paraphrasing, of course. So we have to think outside tracks. Tough for me to do, as I am older and set in my ways. Although Bill is older but he seemed to grasp this and like it.

I like tracks. So I'm glad I have other offerings that allow me to have them.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:43:56 pm

[Shane Ross] "Well, as Bill often says, "you have to forget editing like you used to. FCP-X is a new beast and requires new thinking." Paraphrasing, of course. So we have to think outside tracks. Tough for me to do, as I am older and set in my ways. Although Bill is older but he seemed to grasp this and like it.

I like tracks. So I'm glad I have other offerings that allow me to have them."


:-) It's not really a new way of thinking though, it's just a new way of doing the same thing. A fairly radical departure from convention, but it achieves the same goal. I really felt the same way about tracks. I'm repeating myself here, but I was a mixer for a long time before I was an editor. And before Roles appeared, X was a huge mess in regards to audio. But Roles have fixed that. I don't miss tracks at all. Well... maybe a little, but if they do anything like what Marcus speculates above... Tracks are deader than the floppy, maybe even in DAW's. ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:48:37 pm

I honestly think it's not about really forgetting tracks so much as it is about forgetting the traditional IDEA of tracks.

The parallel I would draw is that there's no Bins in FCPX, but it's easy to categorize your footage with keywords. I think audio [and video] in the timeline can be very neatly organized by Roles- while the organizing information is there, it hasn't been put into effect in the timeline yet.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:52:31 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I think audio [and video] in the timeline can be very neatly organized by Roles- while the organizing information is there, it hasn't been put into effect in the timeline yet."

Yep. Look at what X2Pro can do with Role info. Take a "messy" X timeline, and spit out a beautifully split, well organized protools session. It just needs to be doable in the timeline. Just a little "Group Roles" check box in the index, and the ability to drag the listed roles into a sort order.

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


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 10:30:51 pm

I feel like we are in the bizarro debate forum were almost everyone has at least one nice thing to say!

You must have put on a good show, Bill. Nice work.

Next up, "Shane Ross Presents: Getting Organized in FCPX" brought to you by Budweiser.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:41:50 pm

You can place a folder inside a folder in Avid so I guess I don't see why bins need to be folders. One of the great things about Avid is the bins and how the avid folder/bin structure is mirrored at the desktop level and can be manipulated at the desktop level. For a single user it's probably not a difference that makes much of a difference put in a multi-user, shared storage environment Avid's approach is awesome.

For example, as new footage comes in an assist can propagate it to all the projects that need it merely by doing a copy/paste at the Finder level. No need to open up every project. No need to disrupt the editor. It's great. Need a sequence or some custom FX stored in a bin? You can open up any bin from any project and copy out what you need and since Avid keeps track of who has what bin open there are no worries about multiple editors opening up the same bin and accidentally saving over each others work.

IMO Avid's project structure is fantastic and it would be a really shame if they moved away from it.




Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:14:55 am

ANDREW KIMERY "You can place a folder inside a folder in Avid so I guess I don't see why bins need to be folders."

Sorry for being confusing here. I haven't kept up with Avid's product line since I left it. But at the time you could not do this with Avid Xpress Pro. My example was only trying to illustrate how even the most mundane, sensible idea was regarded as sacrilege by the many in the Avid user base. My feeling at the time was that Avid was listening to the wrong people. I don't know if that has changed now or not. I know I'm not going back though.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 3:49:53 am

Express Pro was EOL'd in '08 (I think) and it also seemed like the red headed step child of the bunch. Avid's begrudging attempt to answer FCP. During most of that era I was primarily using FCP so I missed much of the first hand experience with Avid's attitude and management at the time though from what I understand a lot has changed.

As far as user bases go... they all have their loud mouths and I'm surprised you'd rule out a tool (a promenant tool at that) because of that. I mean, it wasn't that long ago that suggesting FCPX could benefit from having a second viewing window would get you an earful from some people.

I'm sure it just wasn't the user base and there were things with Express Pro that you didn't like but a lot has changed between then and now. I used to own Premiere 6.0/6.5 (not PPro) and hated it. When Adobe said it was rebooting Premiere and it was Windows only I was like good riddance (I'd mainly gone Mac for editing by that time). Now I'm starting to kick the tires on Premiere again (out of necessity and because it's a whole lot better than it was even just a few years ago). You never know when something will be useful to you again. Hell, FCP X is probably 8th or 9th down on my list of software I feel I should know but I'm open to the idea of it moving up if the situation changes.




Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 5:06:49 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I mean, it wasn't that long ago that suggesting FCPX could benefit from having a second viewing window would get you an earful from some people.
"


Yeah, but there was kinda a REASON they got an earfull.

(and yes, often from guys like me.)

It was difficult to argue with someone about the need for something like a second window, when we didn't really understand a lot about what we were doing with the FIRST window back then. Unlike Legacy, the Viewer wasn't ever trying to be a reflection of the Source and Master concept that early NLEs had borrowed from physical A/B roll systems. The Viewer was always designed to be contextural - performing one set of functions in one mode, and instantly switching to another thing in a different mode.

Yes, there are many editing operations where dual windows can be great. But also many where a second window is totally unnecessary. So what's wrong with the idea that it should show up and grab screen real-estate only when there's something you need to DO with it?

My default is giving as much screen horizontal real-estate as I can to my Event Browser. The Viewer, and the Inspector. Those are usable for me most of the time. When I'm doing something that requires a second viewer like Multi-cam - X will launch the second window in that context - then I diminish the Event Browser and also put away the Inspector and concentrate on the task at hand.

Coming to it anew, I can certainly understand any editor feeling that a single window design means that something is "missing" - but I have to say that feeling left me pretty quickly. Now my opinion can be summed up as I want two windows when there's a reason to have them. And when I don't need them - I'm much happier with just one really smart window.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 6:04:01 am

[Bill Davis] " Now my opinion can be summed up as I want two windows when there's a reason to have them. And when I don't need them - I'm much happier with just one really smart window."

I think that summed up everyone's opinion. The disagreement was on when there's a reason to have a second window. ;)




Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 27, 2013 at 4:24:05 am

[Bill Davis] "n certainly understand any editor feeling that a single window design means that something is "missing" - but I have to say that feeling left me pretty quickly. Now my opinion can be summed up as I want two windows when there's a reason to have them. And when I don't need them - I'm much happier with just one really smart window."

I'm okay with a single contextual monitor window. Montage had to work that way, and Speed Razor could work that way. FWIW, there is a history of NLEs with a single monitoring window. It wasn't new in X, though it was new to many people. I don't have to do a lot of ganging, though. Maybe if I did I would miss it.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 26, 2013 at 2:40:21 pm

ANDREW KIMMERY - "As far as user bases go... they all have their loud mouths"

Yes, that's true. But, at the time I got the most grief about suggested improvements from Avid's selected forum moderators. Quite frankly, I was astounded. There were other reasons for my switch to FCP, but this certainly didn't help keep me with Avid.

I do sense there is a difference at Avid now. It took a long time coming, years after I left. And I do think Media Composer is a good, very effective product. For my workflow, it's just not the best choice at this point.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 27, 2013 at 8:34:56 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Yes, that's true. But, at the time I got the most grief about suggested improvements from Avid's selected forum moderators. Quite frankly, I was astounded. "

Yup. I've got no problem seconding that, man. Fighting that weird, smug Avid wall was a real PITA. Remembering that, in fact, is one of the things that has tempered my criticisms of FCP X. It also probably took me longer to get back onto an Avid then it actually should have because of a few blistery resentments of my own. But, that is history now, and many, many of the folks who formed that wall have also had changes of heart. So two steps forward, one step back.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 28, 2013 at 9:08:45 pm

I certainly remember condescending attitudes from some Avid stalwarts but I also remember antagonistic remarks from some FCP flag wavers too. I doubt long time Avid users liked being called dinosaurs that soon will be put out to pasture (pardon my mixed metaphors) any more than FCP users liked being chided that they settled on FCP because they couldn't afford a 'real' NLE. As Chris alluded to a similar rift has appeared between FCP Legend and FCP X and unfortunately the irony is lost on some people (on both sides of the isle).


[Brett Sherman] "For my workflow, it's just not the best choice at this point."

And ultimately this is what it all boils down to in the end. Not all workflows and personal preferences can be accommodated by one tool.




Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 28, 2013 at 10:18:22 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "And ultimately this is what it all boils down to in the end. Not all workflows and personal preferences can be accommodated by one tool."

This is absolutely true.

It's also true that the smart technology user will also notice what the best current tool is that is available today to fit their working style - AND which tools are on the ascendence and which are descending.

We all know FCP-Legacy is on a glide slope to oblivion.

Apple clearly sees X ascending to replace it it as their premier editing tool and are developing it as such. Lets face it, they didn't prioritize putting XML back in to appeal to the casual home editors.

AVID and Premier are working extremely hard to adapt their more traditional editing approaches to the new realities of a modern, file-based world and making great progress doing that.

So the race remains in full chase.

Fun to watch!

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:45:39 pm

Just like Shane the only thing holding me back from trying to do certain projects in X isthe lack of tracks.

The magnetic timeline doesnt bother me at all. Took about an hour to grasp the behavior and obviusly having "P" on overrides it anyways. The tilde modifier was also huge for me.

Back to tracks, i too like being uber organized, i truly feel like 80 percent of editing is organization. I cant stand looking at an X timeline on a deep edit. Its just madness, roles or not. Doesnt make any sense to me.

The multicam mode in X is def next level, no argument there.

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 10:49:22 pm

Ive been cutting on FCP X for the last 4 months. All 3-4 camera multi-cam. For projects like music videos the NLE sync functions work well, but for more less planned events with multiple audio sources, I find that I still need plural eyes 3. The biggest drawback is that you can't match frame to the original clip which is really bothersome to me, but I work around it. Also you can't cut video only because the video is hooked to the audio.

The solution should be to mix in the angle editor but the levels never match for some odd reason.

The biggest plus is being able to switch to proxy media with one click and being able to mix frame rates in a multi clip. And it seems that FCPX renders effects a lot faster than Avid MC.

But alas, I hate working without tracks and the trimming in X is extremely cumbersome compared to avid.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Bill Davis' LACPUG demo on Multicam...
on Jan 24, 2013 at 11:14:20 pm

[David Powell] "
But alas, I hate working without tracks and the trimming in X is extremely cumbersome compared to avid."


I have the same problem. I just feel that half the time X gets in the way of what I want to do.


Return to posts index

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