FORUMS: list search recent posts

Hypothetical

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 1:11:20 pm

If another NLE, such as Avid Media Composer, offered skimming and the style of film strip and list views used in FCP X, plus easy file import, which NLE would you prefer? The assumption is that tracks and timeline editing methods wouldn't change, but that many of the organization methods, like keywords, would also be adopted. What is your reasoning for one over the other? If you are a big Media Composer user, does this pose too much of a change?

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 1:57:35 pm

While I love the keyword tagging of FCP X, I find I don't use it all that much because of the time it takes. When I need it, it's there.

For me, I've come to love the trackless editing. Having edited with FCP X for over a year now, I just find it more logical and efficient. I find there are a lot more options for choosing how to lock things together. I find music editing much easier. And having audio with the video makes a lot of sense for me. It's easier to find the audio track, since the picture of what makes the sound is right next to it. It's also more efficient with screen space. In FCP 7 I used to devote an entire monitor to the timeline so I could see all the tracks without scrolling up and down.

So my answer is no, I'm not interested in going back to tracks.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 5:59:10 pm

[Brett Sherman] " I find music editing much easier. "

do you not find the system whereby there are no global timeline markers a bit irritating?
Also - and I should check this really, but that if you blade during playback, it always blades all tracks?
Even just those two moronic limitations alone I think I would find pretty infuriating when trying to work effectively with music.
but i guess ymmv.

but there seem to be quite a few things that would really annoy someone about trying to work effectively with music?


[Brett Sherman] "It's also more efficient with screen space. In FCP 7 I used to devote an entire monitor to the timeline so I could see all the tracks without scrolling up and down."

It's odd you should say that - I do find FCPX incredibly inefficient vertically as a timeline. Even the guy on FCPX grill made the point that the timeline was very vertically bloated. Also the fact that you can't do a true overwrite of a connected clip etc - it always felt a bit stupid and skyscraper-ish as you just keep pressing Q, and it keeps heading higher.

Also the fact that, three years later, there are no keyboard shortcuts for track height is basically the funniest thing I've ever heard. I always presumed cupertino was doing that just to drive you all completely insane.

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


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:47:27 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "do you not find the system whereby there are no global timeline markers a bit irritating?"

Not really, I always place the music track in a secondary attached to a slug at the start of the primary, this keeps the track in a fixed position, if I need markers I apply them to the music track.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Also - and I should check this really, but that if you blade during playback, it always blades all tracks?"

You should check - it doesn't do that!

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but i guess ymmv."

It does



[Aindreas Gallagher] "do you not find the system whereby there are no global timeline markers a bit irritating?"

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 7:12:31 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's odd you should say that - I do find FCPX incredibly inefficient vertically as a timeline. Even the guy on FCPX grill made the point that the timeline was very vertically bloated. Also the fact that you can't do a true overwrite of a connected clip etc - it always felt a bit stupid and skyscraper-ish as you just keep pressing Q, and it keeps heading higher."

I'd say my experience is based in the real world as opposed to theoretical discussion. It probably depends a lot on how many tracks you use. I tend to be Primary A-Roll, B-Roll Secondary, Lower Thirds, Music and the occasional audio effect. For this type of editing it is better vertically than FCP 7 without question. One track for stereo. Audio combined with video. It always makes it vertically as small as possible when clips don't overlap. And in fact, some overlapping clips can occupy the same space with J and L cuts. None of this was possible with FCP 7. If you had an overlapping stereo track, you had to create two new audio tracks.

Like all editing programs, if you're sloppy it gets worse. Nothing about FCP X requires you to be sloppy.

I'm not sure that I want to get in the weeds on music editing. But, yes it's much easier for me. It's not music videos, it's editing music to fit documentary-style editing. There are so many more options than a track-based system. And once you know how to work it, it is very efficient.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 7:27:11 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Mar 7, 2014 at 7:51:14 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I'd say my experience is based in the real world as opposed to theoretical discussion. It probably depends a lot on how many tracks you use. I tend to be Primary A-Roll, B-Roll Secondary, Lower Thirds, Music and the occasional audio effect. For this type of editing it is better vertically than FCP 7 without question"

Mine is real world too, And I use a boatload of audio "tracks". Does it scroll off the screen? Yep, but so do my timelines in FCP 7, Pr, whatever. For me, 30 + "tracks" are easier to manage in X. In the end It's no less manageable than any other NLE once you know what to expect.
This is the same sequence. Which looks more manageable?


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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:28:10 pm

X would fare even better if it didn't waste vertical space like crazy. Look at all the gaps between "tracks." And when you expand clips, it wastes even more space.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:36:42 pm

[Bret Williams] "X would fare even better if it didn't waste vertical space like crazy. Look at all the gaps between "tracks." And when you expand clips, it wastes even more space."

I agree to a point. You can of course collapse down to label only view, where no space is wasted. also, note that the FCP 7 timeline is resized to the entire height of a 27" screen, while the X timeline only takes up about 2/3 of it. To be fair, PR, with stereo tracks would probably be closer to X as far as screen RE.

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 10, 2014 at 11:44:38 am

Wow, looking at these timelines, they BOTH look amazingly complex. And in Media Composer and PP it would look just as complex.

Not being snarky here at all, as I just want to understand other editing techniques. Since I started using NLE's a long way back, I ways tried to keep a very "neat" timeline. It was, in fact, when I started working in FCP legacy that I noted other FCP editors kept a very "sloppy" timeline and the FCP tutorial itself (Action Sports and Shark Dive) taught a checkerboard timeline that I immediately ignored and then told my students to ignore as well.

Looking at these timelines (and the one Oliver posted in the Wav File thread) I would have tried something different to make it more manageable to the eye and brain. With FCPX (and DS, for that matter) I would use Compound clips to neaten this up (composite container clips in DS, but they work a bit differently:



. SFX in one, titles in another, music in a third and so on. Only after one task is complete would those clips go into compound clips. For example, after cutting the base sound of on-camera and VO, I might move on to Sound Effects. Once completed, all those would go into a container. Same with music, titles, etc. I know some folks don't like Compound Clips. Why is that?

All that said, I don't do a lot of really long form stuff. Most is 15 minutes and under. And again, this is not being snarky, just want to understand how other editors think and work to perhaps improve my skills and understanding. Thanks in advance!

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 10, 2014 at 12:41:47 pm

Part of the reason for FCP X's timeline clutter is the lack of any overwrite function with connected clips. If you were editing clips to V2 in a track-based NLE and left the ends sloppy, each successive edit would overwrite the excess and leave you with a clean timeline. With X, it simply stacks each clip higher. With tracks, you only end up with 2 video tracks when you add 5 b-roll shots. With X, you end up with the equivalent of 6, until you clean it up.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 10, 2014 at 5:06:13 pm

[Oliver Peters] "With X, it simply stacks each clip higher. With tracks, you only end up with 2 video tracks when you add 5 b-roll shots. With X, you end up with the equivalent of 6, until you clean it up.
"


Thats only if you use the old checkerboard method. Can't you simply just cut them back to back and keep all b-roll at one level (connected clip level or a second "track" if you will)? Why have footage "underneath" other b-roll shots?

If I were using Legacy and tracks, I still would only have one video track. The b-roll would be a video-only edit to the video one track. That's just my style. I hate cluttered timelines.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 10, 2014 at 5:24:14 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Can't you simply just cut them back to back and keep all b-roll at one level (connected clip level or a second "track" if you will)? Why have footage "underneath" other b-roll shots?"

Not if you leave the out points long with the initial edit. You would have to be in a secondary storyline to avoid this. The trouble with also doing a video-only edit to the primary storyline (with the intent to leave audio) is that often it wipe out an a/v clip with a v-only clip. In addition, when you do an overwrite edit to the last point of the storyline, is that you cannot make an edit longer than the in-out on the primary storyline. You have to append and then trim back.

With a secondary storyline, everything is pinned to one point at the beginning of the secondary. This defeats the benefits of connected clips, because you are trying to create "fake" tracks. In that case, I feel like moving b-roll clips around in the secondary is even harder than with tracks. MUCH harder, in fact.

With a stack of vertically cascading connected clips, the footage that's "underneath", is merely the excess that was not cut off by the next edit.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:13:31 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I'd say my experience is based in the real world as opposed to theoretical discussion."

you have me beat there. still - you really do need some keyboard shortcuts for track height - seriously, that is just insane - or maybe even the sensory thrill that is running your finger up the magic mouse to expand and contract tracks with millimetre precision. ala ppro cc - :)

also, and just for kicks, pancaking timelines for selects sourcing is something I'm personally getting rather quite seriously into. it's one of the rare times I feel smart. The adobe premiere interface kind of is a magnetic meccano set par excellence.

yes indeed, you've just gotta love that solid iron X unibrick interface. tee the very small hee.

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 2:09:01 pm

Interesting that you bring this up. Part of me does like the timeline but the other part does not. Tracks are better, just my opinion.

Now that I am off that tangent, any editing software would greatly benefit from how Final Cut Pro does organize clips. The last major update was a huge improvement. Avid is a bit clunky when it comes to importing clips into a project. I have not used the latest and greatest version of Premiere Pro since it is subscription only. I will say it is easier to import clips in there.

One thing that Apple should bring back is storyboard editing. With the previous version, one could arrange clips in a certain order, drag them over to the canvas and easily make a rough cut within a few seconds. Premiere does the same thing but it is called something else. Not sure about Avid having this feature.

On another subject, but one that is related: Adobe should look at adding a group like feature much like Motion has. I know that pre-comps are often necessary but having to switch between comps to make a change then back over is not exactly efficient. Easy to do but efficient it is not. Motion could likewise benefit from having the ability to parent layers, have a null object and expressions. Then again, editors are the target audience.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 2:16:40 pm
Last Edited By Ricardo Marty on Mar 7, 2014 at 2:25:05 pm

Where in Premiere cs 6 is the Storyboard editing? I use to have a NLE that had a very capable storyboard interface that was great for building and manpilating a timeline, specialy for event projects.

Pinnacle pro 17 previously avid studio(now Corel) has tracks,magnetic timline and a very smnilar library interface it also has a storyboard but not quite to my liking. Its quite capable and getting better.

I have avid 6 but i cant get into it it just seems to clunky for me though I know its probably not.

I am looking into fcpx (never will be an adobe slave, yes gary i read your posts) If it fixes its motion link i will be in. If it gets the storyboard interface i will definitly jump in.

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 3:26:37 pm

Adobe call is it "Automate To Sequence", same principal just a different name.

Here is a link: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-beginner-classes-with-dennis-radeke/episode...


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 3:22:41 pm

What's this all about? Does this have anything to do with the ACA? ;-)

I think Media Composer needs to fix what it already has on it's plate before adopting FCPX-like features.

I also think the user-base of MC would howl bloody murder with a "radical" change like that. Remember the Smart Tool? I was a beta-tester on that one, and you would have thought the sky had fallen.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 3:33:25 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "I also think the user-base of MC would howl bloody murder with a "radical" change like that. Remember the Smart Tool? I was a beta-tester on that one, and you would have thought the sky had fallen."

Resistance is futile! Evil laugh included at no extra cost! :-)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 11:44:54 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Does this have anything to do with the ACA? ;-)"

Not really, but it would certainly be something I would recommend at some point. Part of it is me. I like MC, but prefer skimming in the Event Browser. X is very fast for reviewing clips and moving up and down through the list with visual confirmation. I like that and it's one of the things that keeps me coming back to X for editing. Especially as more and more of the things I cut come to me without any organization from the client side of things.

BTW - Smoke 2013 also does some nice things in this department. In Smoke, there are always two sequence tabs in the timeline window - source and sequence. That's like MC, but without the toggle. When you arrow up or down through the list of clips, each selection is immediately loaded into the source viewer and timeline tab as you select it. That's nice, too.

But I largely detest the magnetic timeline once I get past the point of slapping a series of clips together. Less the magnetism itself, but more the stupid bouncing connected clips as they re-arrange themselves vertically, often for reasons unrelated to an edit. For instance, zooming in/out the the timeline often causes this.

So I'd like someone to explore some of these features in a track-style NLE. Just seeing what others' thoughts are on this. That's all.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 12:17:20 am

[Oliver Peters] " but more the stupid bouncing connected clips as they re-arrange themselves vertically, often for reasons unrelated to an edit. For instance, zooming in/out the the timeline often causes this."

I'm with you there, it's disconcerting. I'm always bitching about things like that to anyone who listens, also the timeline arbitrarily trying to re-center itself for no reason etc. I don't want the timeline to move unless I move it. I guess that's why I can't fathom why anyone would want a scrolling timeline. But ultimately none of that changes the cut. Personally I can put up with the quirks because of the benefits I perceive.

I literally just quit out of the trailer I'm cutting in 7, and switched to X to change a spot for another job. I guess I have the polar opposite retain to this than others here... it's a pleasure. :-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 3:40:39 pm

Oliver,

As a refugee from the Avid of yore (though hypocritically still using Pro Tools), it would take a lot more than a few interface changes to draw me back.

In terms of FCP X, the keywording and skimming aren't enough to overcome shortcomings like the timeline, limited audio mixing, and platform lock-in. That said, there are things that FCP X does nicely that other NLEs can learn from.

In other words, I don't think the features you've focused on solve any problems or address issues I have with NLEs. Native formats in FCP7 sounds more attractive as a hypothetical.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 4:49:30 pm

Avid, it's just too clunky to me. And I don't think I want tracks back. Once you bring back tracks, you bring back all the BS that comes with it. Patching, locking, and destructive editing. I could take or leave the horizontal magnetism (can we just call it full-time ripple mode already?) But I like connections and I LOVE vertical magnetism/tracklessness. For compositing, you just move things around vertically and things get out of the way. For editing I can edit to the timeline with abandon and not have to be so precise with patching or worry if I'm going to overwrite something. I can edit in the timeline more, in context to the other clips around it. The 3 point edit style kickback to reel to reel editing I don't need to see ever again.

But I understand the one major flaw of X is the export of audio to ProTools, etc. Whereas video tracks are meaningless, because the end result is simply one single video image, audio is different. Tracks equate to channels. And this seems to be the biggest hurdle of this software for some and their workflows, especially regarding export to XML/ProTools.

Which brings me to an idea I haven't heard. How about if X had a simple audio mix mode, where it brings up a window with a single video track, with the audio all separated onto tracks, where you can clean up and organize for ProTools? Seems doable. Perhaps the window could even be a "room" while you're editing? So you can edit in the quicker way, but then pop open this sorta "export prep" or "audio mix" mode where it puts the audio on tracks based on connections and roles, but you can adjust to your liking, or mix with an mix tool, then pop back into chicklet mode? That would seriously be awesome and doable. Kinda like DaVinci. You have separate rooms. Import (we have that), Edit (we have that) and Audio Mix (where you can't edit, but it's a room for mixing the audio or peeping for XML export. The look and feel would probably be more like entering the angle editor for audio. Move audio around freely onto labeled tracks and have a mixer.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 5:56:39 pm

Avid should look at what it had in DS and start from there. Had the company properly developed that product and /or merged it with Symphony/MC (or at least the ideas and workflow) there would be no need for threads like this. Of course they killed it.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:06:18 pm

Saddens me the that the two decent options from Softimage are now almost defunct.

Times are a changing :(


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:09:38 pm

[Bret Williams] "Tracks equate to channels. And this seems to be the biggest hurdle of this software for some and their workflows, especially regarding export to XML/ProTools."

Roles are tracks when it come to ProTools. Now, I realize that you need to spend $150 to do this which seems to make peoples heads explode, but X2Pro makes outputting a beautifully split AAF a breeze. Assign Roles well, and it takes about 3 mouse clicks to do it. Way faster than prepping for a mix in the timeline IMO, particularly if you have lots of audio.

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:21:58 pm

How does it deal with if I have 10 of the same role stacked upon each other? Like SFX? I suppose it would just make 10 tracks with that role. That would be OK.

How does it deal with channels that are turned off in the inspector, but not turned off in audio components? I know that was a problem with earlier versions of Xto7 xml. If you didn't turn off channels in audio components, they were still there in the xml, even though they had been turned off in the inspector.

Anyway, that's great that roles work with ProTools. I don't send to ProTools much. Once in the last 2 years cuz we had a sweetening budget. I'd like to have a mixer of sorts where the tracks are all organized like they would be for the ProTools folks. BUT I don't want them organized that way for editing. As others have mentioned it was a real nuisance having to scroll down and figure out what track the connected audio is on for a piece of video, etc. I definitely like having the audio and video combined and collapsed wherever possible. But a little mini protools-like mixing mode would be cool. Like I said, like DaVinci. Import, Edit, Color, Output. Instead of Color, we'd have an audio room. And heck, a color and fx room would be cool too.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:41:12 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:46:27 pm

[Bret Williams] "How does it deal with if I have 10 of the same role stacked upon each other? Like SFX? I suppose it would just make 10 tracks with that role. That would be OK."

It just stacks 'em if they're the same, but if you make sub roles (mono fx, LF FX, whooshes... whatever) you can choose to keep them on separate tracks, and define their order in the AAF. Or just fit all FX into a group of tracks, your choice.

[Bret Williams] "How does it deal with channels that are turned off in the inspector, but not turned off in audio components? I know that was a problem with earlier versions of Xto7 xml. If you didn't turn off channels in audio components, they were still there in the xml, even though they had been turned off in the inspector. "

If they're off in the inspector, they're not included, if they're muted in components, they're included but volume is set at -96, or whatever all the way down is. Xto7 deals with this the same way now FWIW.


[Bret Williams] " But a little mini protools-like mixing mode would be cool. Like I said, like DaVinci. Import, Edit, Color, Output. Instead of Color, we'd have an audio room. And heck, a color and fx room would be cool too."

I'm with ya there. Or a Role Mixer... Be interesting to see what appears. If history is a guide, I think the next release will probably just be fixing bugs and implementing Library stuff that wasn't quite ready last time though.

What's always intrigued me is the un-changeable checked "Final Cut Pro" selection at the bottom of the Window menu. If that's the only choice, why even have it?

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:50:46 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Or a Role Mixer... Be interesting to see what appears. If history is a guide, I think the next release will probably just be fixing bugs and implementing Library stuff that wasn't quite ready last time though.
"


See, I don't see a role mixer happening. Sure in the special window I was talking about which would be similar to ProTools. But the reason they haven't come out with a mixer so far (role or not) is simple. It won't work. A mixer is based on tracks. Left to right on the mixer, top to bottom on the sequence. If you did a role mixer, how would that work? You're trying to mix fx, and some are at the top above video, some are down at the bottom. Everything has the potential to be a mish mash. So for a few seconds top to bottom the fx might be in one spot on the mixer if it relates to a top to bottom track matching (which it clearly can't because there aren't tracks) or the fx on the mixer have no relation to where the fx are in the timeline.

That's why I think you have to have a separate mode where everything has been visually grouped by roles top to bottom so they can match up with specific channels on the mixer.

Hell, it'd be cool if there was a simple toggle that suddenly put you into this "mode." Perhaps horizontal movement is restricted. If it was a sort of toggle, then maybe a role mixer would work for simple stuff, but when it gets complicated, you hit the toggle and you can't edit video, but you see your audio all organized by tracks/roles.

Yes, it'll be very interesting to see what they do. My guess is they've tried a few things and if they can't do it right, they'll leave it to 3rd party export as they have for now.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:55:59 pm

[Bret Williams] "If you did a role mixer, how would that work?"

Exactly the same as a tracked mixer, it would adjust the level of the Role rather than the track, then it doesn't matter where the clips are.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 2:46:13 am

[Steve Connor] "[Bret Williams] "If you did a role mixer, how would that work?"

Exactly the same as a tracked mixer, it would adjust the level of the Role rather than the track, then it doesn't matter where the clips are."


I like that idea...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:58:34 pm

[Bret Williams] "See, I don't see a role mixer happening. Sure in the special window I was talking about which would be similar to ProTools. But the reason they haven't come out with a mixer so far (role or not) is simple. It won't work. A mixer is based on tracks. Left to right on the mixer, top to bottom on the sequence. If you did a role mixer, how would that work? You're trying to mix fx, and some are at the top above video, some are down at the bottom. Everything has the potential to be a mish mash. "

I totally agree, if it worked like a tracked mixer does now. But say it treated Roles like Logic Track stacks:

http://logicstudiotraining.com/wiki/index.php/Track_Stacks

Maybe a separate window would be involved, or maybe it'd just happen under the hood. But I could see a Role being treated either like a track stack, or an "invisible" compound clip, which you could mix, effect, whatever.

Or, you just click the "Logic Pro" selection in the Window menu and all your stuff is right there, in tracks, ready to mix... I guess we'll see at some point. Or not. ;-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:35:33 pm

Come to think of it, Motion already sort of has what I'm thinking of. You flip open the audio panel and all your audio is there. X could have some sort of panel where you flip it open and your roles become tracks and the role mixer actually makes visual sense. Seeing how Apple likes to keep Motion and FCP X using the same interface metaphors, I could see them doing something along those lines.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:30:59 am

[Bret Williams] "See, I don't see a role mixer happening"

I've written this response about three times now. Finally, it's concise.

1. The important part of a mixer is the bussing and auxiliary sends (PP has submixes which are cool, but Legacy never did).

2. Roles need to be de-facto busses/auxiliary sends, yet compound clips (aka the Jim Giberti technique) cannot be assigned Roles.

3. Apple please code a Role Inspector. It would be easy and trackless. Click the Roles Inspector Icon (that does not yet exist), where we see a column on the left labeled Roles, under which all of the roles in the particular timeline are listed in alphabetical order. On the right are five simple areas: volume, pan, FX, bus, auxiliary. At this level, we are not messing with time, we can do that below, and when we change those times, it doesn't matter because the assigned role is still bussed up here, in the role inspector. We are not messing with individual media levels, we can do that below (as a de facto trim knob in the media itself -- like adding an expander or compressor, or just dialing the trim). However, we do want to mess with an overall mix, like (you guessed it) Side-chain compression, so when my Actor talks, everything else ducks. There are of course many other techniques.

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 11:52:33 pm

[Bret Williams] "Which brings me to an idea I haven't heard. How about if X had a simple audio mix mode, where it brings up a window with a single video track, with the audio all separated onto tracks, where you can clean up and organize for ProTools? Seems doable. "

That is a great idea, and something does need to be done in the sound department. I hope you send a feature request for that.

As far as not being able to go to Protools well, XtoPro had my sound person think I had suddenly developed OCD with how well the tracks were laid out on his end.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:31:14 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If another NLE, such as Avid Media Composer, offered skimming and the style of film strip and list views used in FCP X, plus easy file import, which NLE would you prefer? The assumption is that tracks and timeline editing methods wouldn't change, "

Just to veer back on topic... The X magnetic timeline/skimmer combo is what appeals to me. And really, even the "skimming" available in Pr falls way short of what I've become used to. Drives me nuts on days like today when I'm cutting in a tracked NLE. Though I thing that stuff, particularly file import, would be a great addition to MC, making MC more like Pr wouldn't change my preference. Though I do like trimming in MC. :-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:47:37 pm

2 weeks ago I had to download avid to merge some mxf files from an episode of a show into a single ProRes file for editing as FCPX wouldn't open them. These were 17 mxf files, 16 for audio and 1 for video. They came right out of a network's Avid. They would not import back into the avid. I spend hours trying it. Eventually I bought a $255 plugin and imported it easily into FCPX, created a multi cam of all the tracks, exported to prores, and moved on - and deleted Avid.

Yesterday I opened Premiere Pro CC for the first time on my mac. It took so long to first boot up I forgot I had opened it. When it did open, I went to create a new project. Beachball. Eventually I got Premiere Pro CC to open. Imported a bunch of episodes of a show. For a while they wouldn't play at all. Eventually they did.
So I made some quick test edits into the timeline. You forget a lot of what used to be habitual when you go back to track editing. The biggest was dropping a clip onto another clip just blows it away. There's no way I'm going back to that.

Once you get used to audio being merged into your video track, or clips in the timeline getting out of the way vs being blown away by a new edit, it's really hard to go back. There are things I want added/fixed with FCPX, but it has spoiled me to the point of ruining everything else. That's the absolute truth.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55:37 pm

[John Davidson] "2 weeks ago I had to download avid to merge some mxf files from an episode of a show into a single ProRes file for editing as FCPX wouldn't open them. "

With all due respect, I'm going to chide you a bit. This is the shoe on the other foot. You approached MC with the assumption that it should work like it does in FCP. It doesn't. What you wanted to do could have been accomplished very easily using drag and drop methods. Just not the way you think. I'm not saying the way Avid does things isn't still arcane. You just fell afoul of the same issues that everyone routinely accuses other editors of, when they make simple mistakes using X, because they assume it should work like FCP or MC. Any software has a certain level of complexity that becomes transparent once you know it.

;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:57:44 pm

No really, they didn't work. I was putting them in all the right folders, and even texting Jeremy G for advice while I was doing it. It just...didn't...work.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 9:10:39 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 7, 2014 at 9:14:10 pm

Place them in a new numbered folder (like "2") that you've created within Avid MediaFiles/MXF. Make sure you are doing this on a local drive so there are no permissions issues. Launch MC (it will rescan all Avid MediaFiles folders). Open a new bin in your project. Drag the media database file (.mdb file created when this folder was scanned during MC's launch) from the folder into your open bin in MC. Master clips immediately appear. Audio and video will be combined in one master clip as normal.

You cannot drag MXF files from the folder into MC directly because this type of MXF does not permit this.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 7:01:48 am

Cool cool. It ended up just being more cost effective to buy the plugin to take care of all future MXF conversions from that network by grabbing the Calibrated Software MXF plugin. Luckily/hopefully I won't ever have to attempt that process you described :).

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 8:56:33 pm

[John Davidson] "Once you get used to audio being merged into your video track, or clips in the timeline getting out of the way vs being blown away by a new edit, it's really hard to go back. There are things I want added/fixed with FCPX, but it has spoiled me to the point of ruining everything else. That's the absolute truth."

In nerdly internet shorthand... +1 :-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:42:12 pm

[John Davidson] "Yesterday I opened Premiere Pro CC for the first time on my mac. It took so long to first boot up I forgot I had opened it. When it did open, I went to create a new project. Beachball. Eventually I got Premiere Pro CC to open. Imported a bunch of episodes of a show. For a while they wouldn't play at all. Eventually they did.
So I made some quick test edits into the timeline. You forget a lot of what used to be habitual when you go back to track editing. The biggest was dropping a clip onto another clip just blows it away. There's no way I'm going back to that."


tbf parts of that sound surprisingly weird john. taken it total - it could verge on unlikely.
That's a quite extreme description. I just spent a first fortnight with that software on a project with a wide variety of codec sources on a two year old machine.
it maybe burped three times. coming off 7 I genuinely found the timeline seriously responsive given I was using it in open codec mode with no pre-transcoding?

are you really sure that the above is an accurate description of your experience of the detestable subscription? again - i was on a pretty poor machine giving it not many favours and I never once saw anything close to what you are describing.

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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:53:43 pm

It was yesterday. The mac was a top speced 2013 iMac. First opening of this program seems to take quite a long time to get it to actually work as it initializes 15000 plugins or something like that. The initial opening of the application was also created on an 8 core new mac pro yesterday as well. I was opening it because I wanted to see if it was something I would like as I hadn't messed with the CC version of Premiere yet.

I'm not saying that the timeline isn't snappy or anything like that - it's just destructive. There's a fundamental shift in thinking towards working in the x timeline. When you get it, it's not a big 'AHA' moment, it's more like you just start trusting it to work as it does and forget to be pissed off about it. We are now almost 2 years into using exclusively. We're fully entrenched - but that's ok.

I probably shouldn't mention that we're mixing spots in Logic Pro X now, huh?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 7, 2014 at 11:41:38 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Mar 7, 2014 at 11:47:45 pm

[John Davidson] "I'm not saying that the timeline isn't snappy or anything like that - it's just destructive. There's a fundamental shift in thinking towards working in the x timeline. When you get it, it's not a big 'AHA' moment, it's more like you just start trusting it to work as it does and forget to be pissed off about it."

That's it. I also agree with Simon's ghost post. :-) Pr is very snappy, and X sure can be a dog sometimes. But, like you said, once you get used to working with no tracks, working with tracks is maddening. No matter how snappy it is.

It's not just the tracks either. Clip skimming, never worrying about saving, the ridiculous ease of soloing and manipulating audio, putting audio or video wherever it's convenient... SFX on top of the pix they go with? Why not? The index. effects preview, etc etc. It ain't just skimming and metadata that makes it unique. And the whole argument that X doesn't work with "complicated" sequences is utter horse poop.

Yes, FCP X can be maddeningly quirky, fickle, and sluggish at times, but a restart (which takes like 15 seconds) cures it. Apple is actively working to make it better, and they do listen. That said, PrCC *is* very snappy. :-) It's got a nice combination of things that are it's own, and stuff "adapted" from MC and FCP 7. If you love FCP 7, can't work without tracks, and don't want to use MC, then Pr CC is the NLE for you.

For me, using any of the latter is like editing with mittens on. I'm cutting in 7 today. It sucks. :-P

EDIT: Kinda funny, I just realize that I'm now cutting in tracks like I cut in X. Stacking clips (like connected clips) to cut a "pod". It's quicker for me to move layers, rather than slipping, sliding, rolling edits etc. to fine tune the cut. But I can't just slam all the clips down to the primary when I'm done. I wish tracks worked like magnetism...

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 12:19:05 pm
Last Edited By Mathieu Ghekiere on Mar 8, 2014 at 12:21:02 pm

I think I would still prefer FCPX, although Adobe has a strong suite (especially when considering features, they aren't big masters of user experience when USING those features)

First, I like the timeline. It really allows you to work faster in 90 percent of the cases. The moments you don't want magnetism, you can work around it (although it's not completely gone) by working with connected clips.

Like a couple of others here, I think tracks are a workaround for not having a magnetic timeline. Or at least I think that is as much a viable opinion as the opposite.

Yes, I do think Roles, and visual organization in the timeline can be better. Yes, FCPX is a young NLE, and you notice it every day in some bugs (which every NLE has), in some big foundational changes still happening (the Library model in 10.1) and in missing features.

But, although I had my moments of doubting Apple when FCPX just launched, and the Mac Pro was not being updates, I don't doubt them anymore. I would doubt the other NLE's much more. In the end Apple rewrote FCP completely from the ground up, WHEN NOBODY WAS PUSHING THEM. Adobe only really pushed with Premiere development when the FCPX debacle broke out. Avid has - from what I've heard, I haven't got personal experience - a very stable working solution that caters to certain demanding workflows, but they haven't really innovated a lot in years or are behind in new code and/or features.
It must have cost Apple millions of dollars rewriting FCP and re-inventing a new Mac Pro, but they did it. They innovated, with both good and bad consequences (a botched launch of FCPX due to missing features, the PCI to Thunderbolt transition on the Mac Pro) but they INNOVATED.

I do respect them for that. And since FCPX, although it's been an admittedly bumpy ride (we all have our grieves ;-)), it's fun and exciting development. It has us the users, thinking about concepts of editing again, re-evaluating them. See what and how it can be better, with some faults along the line.
At this point, I follow the FCPX path, because it does what it needs to do for me at this point, and I can't wait to see how they develop these new concepts of a magnetic timeline and roles and keywords. The thing that needs the most development is Roles (and mixing) in my opinion but I already like it a lot more than tracks.
It's a meta-tag based on content, and not on a random number-system.

I have a wish list of about 50 bullet points for FCPX. You could see that as a negative, but at the same time, FCPX forced me to open up thinking in what I want from a modern editing system, much more then older systems did. Older systems didn't challenge me to think about making big wish-lists because I mostly accepted the things like they are. With FCPX changing a lot of editing paradigms, suddenly you start thinking about all the things that could be better.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 12:45:35 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "Adobe only really pushed with Premiere development when the FCPX debacle broke out."

Wow...nothing couldn't be further from the truth.

Adobe moved to 64-bit at the height of FCP's popularity - so we weren't investing or 'pushing' the product then? A complete re-write that cost millions of dollars? Only Apple can do that? What about GPU innovation? First to have a usable editor for DSLR footage? This is all CS...5 in 2010!

At the end of the day, the market reacted to FCP X by embracing other editors including Premiere Pro which perhaps is a more accurate description.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion and I do wish you all success with your choice of FCP X, but Adobe (or any company for that matter) makes a product with purpose and determination.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 5:32:34 pm

Hi Dennis,

I didn't say the first to edit DSRL footage. I also didn't talk about 64bit. I know Premiere was first. You were also the first with a RAW R3D workflow.
I'm talking about re-imagining the whole editing process (organization of footage, how a timeline works, etc. ...)


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 6:41:10 pm
Last Edited By Paul Neumann on Mar 8, 2014 at 6:45:08 pm

XMP metadata support with CS4 in 2008.

Personally, when I was told CS4 would be 64-bit and I could have an HP workstation with as much RAM as it could hold I started shaking my head at what Apple was doing with FCP.


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 6:56:28 pm
Last Edited By Mark Raudonis on Mar 8, 2014 at 6:59:25 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "With FCPX changing a lot of editing paradigms, suddenly you start thinking about all the things that could be better.
"


I know everyone here loves the "automobile" comparisons, so here we go.

When Tesla created their "paradigm shifting", award winning, disruptive version of the car of the future, they still kept the concept of four wheels on the road. They could of gone with a tricycle design (See Aptera), but they kept what worked, and changed everything else.

I'd argue that FCP-X is a tricycle.

mark



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 7:15:51 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "I'd argue that FCP-X is a tricycle. "

I'd argue it's got two wheels and it's a Ducati!

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 7:16:29 pm

Based on how much faster I, at least, can edit with it, I'd argue it's a jet pack.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 8, 2014 at 8:48:42 pm

[John Godwin] "Based on how much faster I, at least, can edit with it, I'd argue it's a jet pack."

hahaha +1 on the jet pack

Someone else mentioned on here the merging of video and audio, I had never thought about it before X

but that alone speeds stuff up for me. For the most part they don't really need to be separated by default.

The tools in X by themselves don't seem like a big deal. The skimmer, those little audio fade handles, tagging and others, but together there are just too many goodies in there for me to turn away from.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Hypothetical
on Mar 10, 2014 at 5:09:08 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "I'd argue that FCP-X is a tricycle."

This is just hilarious. I guess Henry Ford could have put mechanical hooves on his first cars, because back then they just wanted a faster horse.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

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