FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Mathis
FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 4, 2014 at 7:34:26 pm

It has been more than three months since we have seen an update. Slowly losing my mind, slowly going nuttier than a fruitcake and going to call a shrink to have my head examined.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 4, 2014 at 7:50:08 pm

squishing bugs, optimizing, squishing bugs, optimizing etc. etc. The longer they take, the better IMO. ;-)

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

~ 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

David Cherniack
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 4, 2014 at 8:23:19 pm

And maybe adding tracks? (Cough).
Seriously, if it was optional, would you turn your nose up? Just wondering how ideologically committed to the present paradigm many of you are if tracks would hasten the adoption by the many that have fled because of their absence.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 4, 2014 at 8:39:05 pm

Tracks do come in handy on occasion but sometimes they get in the way. I think some type of hybrid timeline would be nice but not likely going to happen anytime soon.

One area that can be improved is in color correction. At present there are no individual RGB sliders or curves. No ability to key frame color correction either. I have used the blade tool to cut up a clip as an alternative but not exactly efficient.

That being said, in its present form it is a solid editing application. My two cents, whatever it is worth.


Return to posts index

Loren Risker
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 5:00:13 pm

You can publish any of the color effects from motion and get some great color tools and keyframing that way.

-------------
OutOfFocus.TV - Original series, music videos, mini-docs.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 9:11:57 pm

[Loren Risker] "You can publish any of the color effects from motion and get some great color tools and keyframing that way."

We could also go back to film, scissors and tape, but that isn't a proper solution either...

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: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 4, 2014 at 9:12:52 pm

[David Cherniack] "And maybe adding tracks? (Cough).
Seriously, if it was optional, would you turn your nose up?"


Lol. It already is optional. Secondary storylines are FCP X tracks. IF you need everything in one line for visual organization, they work great. And (other than mixing) that's really the only thing about tracks "missing" in FCP X. :-)

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

~ 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

Bill Davis
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 12:21:00 am

And while we're getting tracks in X, lets make sure our cities install barrier style guardrails between the lanes of all our public streets - because requiring everyone to move around in strictly segregated, fixed width and consistent lanes is awesome.

Time to head over to Cafe Press to do some t-shirts emblazoned with "The Magnetic Timeline - edit sans training wheels."

; )

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

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 1:29:01 am

Or maybe the team has been pulled to work on Aperture Pro X ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 1:36:33 am

[Oliver Peters] "Or maybe the team has been pulled to work on Aperture Pro X ;-)"

Very possible. I just made up a rumor that they're adding an advanced slide show editing timeline!

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

~ 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

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 3:45:50 am

Now that compressor has been updated properly- Aperture is the last of the ProApps that needs a serious overhaul. But I haven't heard a peep about Aperture development for quite some time.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 3:43:22 am

I would be disappointed to see tracks return. It works very well for me at the moment, but I'm more than willing to admit that improvements need to happen before it's a "no excuses" alternative to track-based workflows.

I see some really promising ideas with Roles, and I hope Apple follows thru.


Return to posts index


Scott Witthaus
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 10:30:49 am

[David Cherniack] "Seriously, if it was optional, would you turn your nose up? "

If I want tracks and slow my workflow down, I would go back to Avid or worse, Premiere. If you want tracks that look like X, Resolve 11 is right around the corner. Tracks are good when charging by the hour. ;-)

In my humble opinion, tracks are not coming back to FCP. Why would Apple do that? They just put time and effort into this totally new product and workflow. It works and it's silly-fast. It's like asking for a physical keyboard for an iPhone. Ain't gonna happen. We just need to accept that this is the new Final Cut product and use it, or move on (or back to) to another product.

It's like that old southern joke (I live in Virginia, btw): How many southerners does it take to change a lightbulb? Six. One to change it and the other five to talk about how great the old lightbulb was!

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 1:00:36 pm

The benefit of tracks is better interchange with other applications. For example, moving audio to Logic Pro X is still substandard due to the lack of tracks in FCP X. That being said, I doubt tracks - as we understand them from other track-based applications - are even possible in FCP X.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 1:21:11 pm

The interchange of fcpxml to Logic Pro X is certainly substandard, but using AAF with a purpose built x2pro exporter works just like any other tracked based system.

If you use x2pro and setup even a cursory set of Roles, everything just works. You can even buy x2pro and not rent it.

I don't need tracks, I just want fcpx to be a bit better. It's getting there, but this latest update cycle seems like a really long break, even though it's "normal".


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 1:34:39 pm

I've never gotten X2Pro to work successfully for me, because of the source audio tracks and embedding. But I'll try that once again tonight on my test project. AAF or FCP7 XML from Premiere or Xto7 into LPX didn't work at all. I've actually had more accurate translations going FCPXML via Xto7 to XML and then into Audition.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 2:52:40 pm

That's weird. I just purchased X2Pro for a specific job and didn't hear boo from the audio guys. You should try sending your XML to the developer.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:50:53 pm

Marcus and Jeremy,

I re-ran the test with FCPXML and an X2Pro-converted AAF into Logic Pro X. Both work fine, except, the AAF retained the overlaps created by split edits in storyline audio edits, while the FCPXML does not. It does retain these overlaps if I detach audio first in the FCP X timeline before export.

OTOH, if I leave the camera clips set to stereo instead of dual mono, the AAF comes in as 2 tracks per clip (dual mono), whereas the FCPXML comes in as stereo. So pros and cons either way. The AAF strips off all levels, while the FCPXML retains the FCP X levels.

The problems I've had before with X2Pro and AAF, as I recall, seemed to have to do with QT sources that were linked and not copied into the library. In this case, these were C300 clips, which I imported into the library. In any case, AAF-generation with X2Pro is now working for me - at least on this project and with LPX.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 2:18:20 pm

[Oliver Peters] "That being said, I doubt tracks - as we understand them from other track-based applications - are even possible in FCP X."

Support for multiple primaries would essentially be support for tracks.

But then the toolset would need to be modified for primary patching.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 3:54:37 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Support for multiple primaries would essentially be support for tracks.

But then the toolset would need to be modified for primary patching."










Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 4:03:33 pm

[Jeremy & Darth Vader] "NOOOOOO!"

I find your lack of faith disturbing. They'd clearly also add a super-primary, to which other primaries could be connected and magnetically manipulated, thus eliminating destructive clip collisions and negating primary patching...

In all seriousness, would so many still clamor for tracks with better (more) use of roles in the timeline?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 4:06:32 pm

[Walter Soyka] "would so many still clamor for tracks with better (more) use of roles in the timeline?"

That's an easy answer:








I have always said, I just want FCPX to be more like FCPX.

If we had layered secondary containers, that would be amazing. Also, a way to navigate layers with keyboard. I think the current FCPX bouncing ball, a la Smoke, is a working technology preview of that.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 4:28:43 pm

Here's an image I mocked up a while ago of a current version of a Project, with a version that has colour-coded Role organization.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 4:46:21 pm

Marcus, I'm one of the non-believers who doesn't think color-coding is enough. Interestingly, in your mockup, you've done both color-coding AND vertical organization at the same time. I think this is important. Check out what can happen with color-coding only:



Now of course the top and bottom in my modification of your mockup don't show the same data -- this is just meant to illustrate how "wasting" vertical space makes an edit much more readable at a glance.

I'm not saying that color-coding isn't valuable -- just that a "tracked" view based on roles reads faster. If the FCP X timeline could show different views of the same underlying editing, I think that'd be valuable.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 4:53:48 pm

I agree with you completely- hence my mockup being the way it is. Besides colour, there needs to be visual separation of Role elements so they don't "intermix" the way they do now.

The concept I keep leaning on is that Roles are like Keywords for the Project. Right now we can assign Roles, but there's no visual container like Keyword Collections organizing them in the Project window.

I could also see great benefit to being able to collapse and expand Roles into "single lanes"- horizontal space is always at a premium in a timeline. There's something like this is LogicX.


Return to posts index

Jason Huxley
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 9:58:48 pm

I like the color coding idea. I use that all the time in media composer. Maybe if they allowed coloring of roles and then you could order those roles. So if you dropped in a SFX role it went yellow and automatically grouped in a similar level to the other SFX roles. Easy to visualise. Like the flattening of roles idea as well. Could really help to simplify.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 4:53:51 pm

Updated the image to reflect the actual edit from your initial example:



And also I wanted to clarify that I think we are asking for the same thing -- that didn't come through in my first post.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 4:57:26 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on May 5, 2014 at 4:58:12 pm

Yeah, I didn't specify that Roles were "segregated" in my example. In fact, I think separation could be more important than colour coding.

Here's another image for someone who asked me how all this would work with Audio Components.



Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 7, 2014 at 3:18:53 am

Then of course there's this...



Ah, now THAT's refreshingly organized and professional looking.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 5:48:49 pm

[Walter Soyka] "... would so many still clamor for tracks with better (more) use of roles in the timeline?"

Walter,

Those who think that a mixer and real-time mixing are important are probably not "so many" in the target demographic.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 5:59:57 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on May 5, 2014 at 6:00:58 pm

I don't think either of those things are out of the realm of possibility with Roles-based organization.

A Role group CAN be several lanes high, if you just have one DIALOGUE Role for instance. In mixing that would suppose that any volume adjustment or effect you want to apply would be done so to all clips within that DIALOGUE Role. Essentially sub-mix.

However, if you need more granularity, a sub-Role for each character is easily created.

If you create enough sub-Roles, the difference between a Role "lane" and a track become pretty semantic.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:04:39 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I don't think either of those things are out of the realm of possibility with Roles-based organization"

Marcus,

Perhaps. But really I'd have to see the implementation.

But I can imagine moving from a stretch where there are 3 sound clips, to one where there are 11 - and suddenly your mixer controls switch. I think it is just fundamentally difficult to implement in a way that maintains the simple, direct, intuitive interface that the current mixer UI offers.

That Apple kept "tracks" for Logic suggest that they see their fundamental value and use in time-based A/V editing applications.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:20:02 pm

I think in exclusively audio oriented applications, you're right.

But I think FCPX's associative model for Projects required a different philosophy.

LogicX is far separated development-wise from the FCPX team. They're way over in Germany, far from the rest of ProApps.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:38:04 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on May 5, 2014 at 6:41:22 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I think in exclusively audio oriented applications, you're right."

Marcus,

Here's the revolution: Audio and Video in one application.

Franz.

Edit:

Okay, to be more useful, I think Avid is moving (in tiny steps) towards more integration between Pro Tools and Media Composer. The idea of two ways of accessing the same project is an interesting model. (And not one seen anywhere right now in the way I can imagine).


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:55:10 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Here's the revolution: Audio and Video in one application."

That revolution started to happen about 20 years ago. It was called Avid Audiovision. They killed it off when they acquired Digidesign. It was a great app. The transition to ProTools when I was was mixing was painful.

Everyone's needs in this regard are different. Personally, the last thing I want to do when I'm cutting something is bring up a bank of faders and start throwing them around. The mixer in Pr drives me nuts. To me, if X did have faders, having a master fader per role would be enough. It's faster and more precise - for me - to do clip based leveling. A lot of mixers I work with spend more time adjusting clips in the DAW that throwing faders, they're usually reserved for group master levels. Not always true, but not uncommon.

I think Apple is doing a lot of work "under the hood" on things like fcpxml that will open up some very interesting workflow possibilities. It's not a sexy, in your face feature, but it's really important for for things like Color, Audio, Asset Management, Versioning etc. Maybe it'll make "mixing" better too. Who knows... :-)

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

~ 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

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:56:56 pm

Here's my general philosophy on this-

After having used X for 3 years now, I've come to believe that tracks are an impediment to speed in editing video. Before now, we've NEEDED to use the concept of tracks, but they were a concession to the audio side of the equation.

FCPX seems to me is putting more weight on the video side of that equation. It may not be a purely better audio solution, but a better video solution. If Apple can do what I'm hoping, then the net deficit on the audio side will more than made up for by benefits in speed and fluidity on the video side.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:02:00 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Everyone's needs in this regard are different."

Charlie,

One way to assess a tool is how readily it adapts to different needs.

[Marcus Moore] "FCPX seems to me is putting more weight on the video side of that equation. It may not be a purely better audio solution, but a better video solution."

Marcus,

I'm intrigued by this in that it at least admits of certain ideological underpinnings in the design decisions. But again, if what you say is true, then FCPX will appeal more to editors who "put more weight on the video side of that equation". That's one way to describe it as an NLE.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:09:21 pm

Possibly. Or it might just be that as I said it's a measure of total net benefit.

Here's some numbers I'm pulling out of my ass.

If working with tracks slows means your picture cutting is 30% slower but your audio is 100% efficient.

But in FCPX your cutting is 100% but your audio is only 15% slower, then the net benefit is that your job gets done faster.

It's just inverting the compromise in workflow, not necessarily that audio is any less important to the overall job. ;)


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:16:05 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Charlie,

One way to assess a tool is how readily it adapts to different needs."


Totally agree. But that doesn't mean one tool is "better" than the other right? The extremely ridiculous auto analogy would be Ferrari > Audio Quattro > Jeep. Use what you need. :-)

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

~ 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

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 1:34:04 am

The audio solution in X (without leaving X) is easy. Apple just needs to listen (hahahaha)

From an audio mixing/mastering point of view, Treat Roles as inputs*.

Create a Roles inspector with the following grid:

Role name | Solo switch | Mute switch | Volume | Pan | Effects Loop | Auxiliary Send | Send

That's the basic signal flow direction also (left to right); all of this entails the existence of a Master Fader (which is the default Send).

By using Compound Clips to do these things, X gets pretty good, but the organization is not as flexible (and less complex) than an actual mixer.

*Please note engineers have been mixing audio way before DAWs; that is, the familiar-waveform-track is not required in audio, but an input into the mixing board is required.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 1:47:41 am

[Richard Herd] "The audio solution in X (without leaving X) is easy. Apple just needs to listen (hahahaha)"

I just sent this to Apple (someone there foolishly gave me their contact info), minus the snark. ;-) They may not listen, but it can't hurt right?

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

~ 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

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 1:51:30 am

Cool!

I've already sent it about a dozen times :)


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 1:58:35 am

Audio MUST be high on the list. Besides "Send to Motion" it's probably one of the most requested features I can think of (besides overall stability and performance).

Besides that, there were job postings for audio positions on the X team early last year.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:03:16 am

That's good to know.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:16:01 am

[Marcus Moore] "Audio MUST be high on the list. Besides "Send to Motion" it's probably one of the most requested features I can think of (besides overall stability and performance)."

I really think what Apple is doing now is trying get the core of the app rock solid. That's probably (hopefully) why the next update is taking a while. As we're all aware, there are lots of little bugs introduced with 10.1, as well as others that have been hanging around for a while. I hope they fix it all before they start bolting on all the bells and whistles we all want.

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

~ 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

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:22:50 am

As I said, performance and stability comes first. It's not sexy, but it makes the experience of running the app that much better.

I'd just say that overall Audio must be high on the list of priorities for upcoming feature development. As was discussed in a thread below, I just don't think the makeup of any software team like X must have makes it possible that performance and stability is everyone's job. There must be parallel tracks of features in varying disciplines (audio, colour)- when that work is ready to be integrated is another matter.

Incidentally, someone on the fcp.co forums was contacted by Apple and asked some specific questions regarding colour correction. It seems like they were tying to get info for future development of the toolset.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 3:28:32 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "But I can imagine moving from a stretch where there are 3 sound clips, to one where there are 11 - and suddenly your mixer controls switch. I think it is just fundamentally difficult to implement in a way that maintains the simple, direct, intuitive interface that the current mixer UI offers."

Please pardon me, audio is not my forte -- but how would you mix 11 simultaneous sources at the same time in the real world, with only 10 fingers or only 8 faders in a bank? Wouldn't you do this with a series of automation passes?

Would you consider a track mixer and a clip mixer to be different things? It sounds like you're using the former as a proxy for the latter, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Why would the UI have to be so significantly different? What if FCP X had a clip mixer (1:1 like your track mixer now), plus a roles (bus) mixer?


[Franz Bieberkopf] "That Apple kept "tracks" for Logic suggest that they see their fundamental value and use in time-based A/V editing applications."

I think there are several possible reasonable explanations for keeping tracks in Logic -- but I also would naively think that a DAW and an NLE could have good reason to be different.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 6:07:31 pm
Last Edited By Richard Herd on May 6, 2014 at 6:08:17 pm

[Walter Soyka] "how would you mix 11 simultaneous sources at the same time"

I know you asked Franz (and it was probably rhetorical); however,...

This happens all the time with a single engineer. It's at the heart of the difference between a live mix and DAW.

Easy example, a live band that has a lead singer, three backup singers, kick drum, snare, toms, high hat overheads, guitar, bass, piano-low, piano-mid, piano-hi...maybe some horns. This can go on and on. To complicate things, a live mix also has a house mix and a monitor mix--often many monitor mixes. Very frequently, the monitor mix (aka stage mix) is literally an engineer working his or her magic, just barely hiding in the wings. (Anyway, the DSP is quite interesting also.)

In my scenario for X, each mic input is the same as a Role.

I would also want the drum inputs to be subbed to a Drums Role, same with backup singers subbed to a Backup Singers Role and some other subs, etc.

Here's a gain staging solve example:

In a particular song, it's really important for the kick and bass to pound through the mix more than anything else, even the vocals. No problem. Since they are defined as Roles, they can be sent to Submix 1, and everything else sent to Sub2 (or whatever secret sauce a particular engineer makes), so that the compression on sub2 is sidechained to sub1. In this way, anytime the bass and drum hit in sub1, the compression algorithm kicks and sub2 is ducked--in very very precise ways, measured in milliseconds, 1000 keyframes per second. For the audience, the experience would be heavy beats and low end, and in the right composition, people will dance.

A similar issue happens in film and broadcast, where there are SFX, Foley, Score, dialogue. Gain staging is that creative solve that aims at story and emotion of a mix. Because cinema audio is not actually live, the waveforms in the editing side of the daw behave as inputs. But, like in a musical composition, once the ins and outs are set (vis-a-vis, the musicians know which measure to begin and end on), the waveform timecode is essentially moot, and in X is set via the (P)IOPs. It's also important that DAWs editing timebase can be in many forms, video frames, film frames, feet-on-film, beats, measures and time signature.

A bit more, here. In a cinema scene where a guy walks into a bar and orders a drink, there might be dozens of audio cues; his footsteps for example as he walks across the room. The gain staging, here, is what would the editor call that bit of Foley, so that it busses/sends to the Role he or she would want to treat in a way that best conveys the mood and story? Here's where, above I can't remember who mentioned, there could be some great opportunity to overlap between roles and keywords, where the keywords are "footsteps" but the Role is "Foley." Suppose the story calls for the footsteps to be prominent, well, the editor might not want to revise the gain staging and role select the room ambience as as ROOM (all of the various elements) and then the Footsteps as their own Role, so the compression emphasizes the Footsteps.

in sum, Roles are a sweet way to contemplate and solve gain staging. Of course, anyone could give every audio element its own Role name and keep the old way of how tracks organize media. ;)


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 6:14:13 pm

[Walter Soyka] "... how would you mix 11 simultaneous sources at the same time in the real world, with only 10 fingers or only 8 faders in a bank"

Walter,

A mixer is (among other things) a kind of spacial organization, and an opening for multiple inputs for those who go beyond mouse and keyboard.

You can do it all with one fader but that's a lot of extra clicking about or switching. Multiple faders allow simultaneous adjustments if you wish. I haven't used more than two at once - but I have moved from fader to fader. I'm surprised by some of the pearl-clutching reaction to using faders for mixing - it's great to be able to watch and listen and adjust simultaneously.

I'll re-iterate that I'm interested to see a role-based mixer. I'm just skeptical about it's implementation, and frankly skeptical that Apple will even bother with it.

[Walter Soyka] "Would you consider a track mixer and a clip mixer to be different things?"

I'm not warm to Adobe's distinction (or implementation in two panels) if that is what you mean.

[Walter Soyka] " I also would naively think that a DAW and an NLE could have good reason to be different."

That seems to be a common sentiment here, but no one has explained why.

Here's my feeling - NLEs are tools for arranging and refining audio and image in time. That's a broad capability and there are specialized needs - motion graphics, colour, audio (to name 3 examples) all require specialized tools and the sophistication of those subsets is one of the ways NLEs are evaluated, and as I mentioned at the beginning, there are probably few who think a mixer is an important feature.

Some will argue that the features they don't use are "superfluous" - that's an ongoing characteristic of discussions here.

But when colour correction (for example) starts to get integrated into an NLE, there are certain people who immediately grasp that as a simplification of workflow and opportunity for more refined work. Others will simply think that "goes beyond" what an NLE is (or should be).

Part of what I react to is the idea that some users seem to embrace Apple's "new way of doing things" in X, and then hold to very rigid distinctions of what an NLE should be (ie. video focused). I find that remarkably closed-minded. Hearing is one of (at least) 2 senses being shaped by any timeline.

This discussion began (for me) because Marcus said that beyond better use of roles he couldn't see any advantages to tracks. There are other advantages to tracks, of course, but the audio mixer is a big one. A role mixer may address that, but then we're talking about pretend software again aren't we?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 7:29:19 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "frankly skeptical that Apple will even bother with it."

&

[Franz Bieberkopf] "we're talking about pretend software again aren't we?"

I recall being very skeptical about About apple implementing PIOPs. I recall thinking it's just pretend, and they won't bother with it.

So I'm compelled to jump in at a certain place. Roles Inspector where roles are inputs is an easy solve for Apple.

Above I listed the pretend software Role Inspector grid, which included a fader, for those who likey.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 7:52:55 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on May 6, 2014 at 7:54:10 pm

[Richard Herd] "I recall being very skeptical about About apple implementing PIOPs."

Richard,

This is a great example.

There was a desire for a certain kind of functionality. The implementation - the details - mattered a lot. Some have said in this forum that PIOP are a poorly implemented feature.

That kind of assessment can only be made once it's no longer pretend - particularly when you're charting through a "new paradigm".

Franz.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 8:30:54 pm

What I miss when in FCPX is REVERSE MATCH FRAME which is directly derived from this trackless discussion but not yet mentioned. AVID and FCP 7 have it. PP CC will have it next. This is a core operation for many editors. You can workaround it with used ranges, timeline index and trim tool to read tc, but not as fast as using reverse match framing.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 9:02:51 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Some have said in this forum that PIOP are a poorly implemented feature"

The details of the critique, if memory serves (always a bit dubious), were that workflows were started and maintained on on-going projects, then the implementation of PIOPs broke the previous workflow. So moving forward accessing old projects required an additional keystroke or two.

In spirit, you're right on the dot, bolting on features to established workflows will definitely create unforeseen real-world problems.

Having said that. Risk/reward of (the imaginary software I'm calling) Roles Inspector would be a nice benefit.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 7, 2014 at 10:41:30 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm not warm to Adobe's distinction (or implementation in two panels) if that is what you mean."

I'm not sure what else you would have us do. Premiere Pro's track based mixer was designed by an engineer who also happens to be a musician and as a result is a tracks-based (ala ProTools or audio DAW) mixer. When lots of FCP7 type users and Avid users cried out for an audio mixer they were used to, we delivered the Clip Mixer. Choice is good and understanding how the two are different gives the user more ability.

Not sure what you would have had us do to make customers from both schools of thought happy?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 7, 2014 at 1:17:36 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on May 7, 2014 at 1:26:23 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "Premiere Pro's ... is a tracks-based (ala ProTools or audio DAW) mixer."

Dennis,

In ProTools, to take one example, volume graphing (and other automation) moves with clips.

Franz.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not against 2 modes of mixer, but firstly I don't see how this was modeled after ProTools; secondly, I don't understand why there are two slightly different graphic and function implementations. It seems to me a simple "mode toggle" on the mixer would be more elegant.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 8, 2014 at 2:20:11 am

[Dennis Radeke] "When lots of FCP7 type users and Avid users cried out for an audio mixer they were used to, we delivered the Clip Mixer. "

And I totally dig it, btw! I find a mix of both approaches both unique and very, very useful.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 8, 2014 at 3:46:34 am

[Chris Harlan] " I find a mix of both approaches both unique and very, very useful."

Chris,

I'd be interested to hear the how and why if you have general principles about using one or the other.

Also, would a simple mode toggle work in theory?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 8, 2014 at 5:24:21 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Chris,

I'd be interested to hear the how and why if you have general principles about using one or the other.

Also, would a simple mode toggle work in theory?

Franz.
"


Hey Franz!

In general, its something like this. I like using the clip mixer to edit dialog. I find it more effective to slice words and syllables and adjust the volume of the clip. I'll also use this on individual sfx, especially if I have a few clumped together.

I then tend to use the track editor for music and mix, especially with subs. Say I have four tracks of sfx. At a clip level I will mix them relative to each other, and then use track level to mix subs of dialog, VO, sfx and music. I tend to begin the edit at clip level and finish at track level, but at each step there is some crossover


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 8, 2014 at 2:15:02 pm

[Chris Harlan] " I tend to begin the edit at clip level and finish at track level, but at each step there is some crossover."

Chris,

How much volume graphing are you doing with the track mixer (it sounds like you do more with the clip mixer) - and don't you find it problematic if there are edit changes and you've got automation written to tracks?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 8, 2014 at 5:02:44 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Chris Harlan] " I tend to begin the edit at clip level and finish at track level, but at each step there is some crossover."

Chris,

How much volume graphing are you doing with the track mixer (it sounds like you do more with the clip mixer) - and don't you find it problematic if there are edit changes and you've got automation written to tracks?

Franz"


I don't do volume graphing. My work is short and precise, with a lot of minuscule dialog edits that require hand-coddling--cutting sub-clauses out of sentences, gabbing pronouns from other parts of the production, combing two sentences that appear twenty minutes apart into one shorter, more meaningful expression. Though I'm always tempted to automate, I find that it gets in the way more than not, and, from years of practice, I'm relatively fast--I don't need to think as much about what I'm doing.

As to the automation for the later arena--that mostly happens after Studio or network approval, so there aren't a billion changes, if any.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 8, 2014 at 5:41:24 pm

[Chris Harlan] " I'm relatively fast--I don't need to think as much about what I'm doing."

Chris,

Good to see you in the forum.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 9, 2014 at 4:33:26 am

Hey!

Luckily, I've just been so busy that its hard to post, but I HAVE been reading along.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:03:21 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Those who think that a mixer and real-time mixing are important are probably not "so many" in the target demographic. "

But why would these require tracks and not roles?

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:09:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "But why would these require tracks and not roles?"

Walter,

I'm open to seeing a role-based mixer, but as I outlined above I think it presents many problems for designing a UI.

If I have 3 clips of sound and then suddenly 1 finishes and then 9 more begin, what is happening to the UI of the mixer?

A role may have several simultaneous clips - would there be a simple "expand" function - how will this affect other clips being currently mixed. How will they implement multi-track clips (a similar problem)?

When you imagine the hardware and software control surfaces - often designed around groups of 8 faders - you start to realize the problem.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm interested to see it. But I'm skeptical.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:23:37 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on May 5, 2014 at 6:24:00 pm

Franz, I tried to explain this above but let me try again.

I think in this scenario you have to assume a Role, regardless of how many clips high it is, counts as a single "Track" to the mixer. A Role is essentially a pre-mix.

If you don't want that, then you need to break your rolls down into sub-Roles like

DIA JIMMY
DIA FRED
DIA MARY

Now each of those is a mixer "Track", and each one is probably only a single clip high.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:37:05 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on May 5, 2014 at 6:42:39 pm

Marcus,

I understand, I just think you dialog tracks are going to be constantly jumping around - will Jimmy DIA always "pop up" on the same fader? What about when you have 2 clips of Jimmy DIA at the same time?

I think what is lost is the direct relationship of what is on any given fader at any given time - if I have to constantly be looking and checking and flipping around faders then I'm not really mixing by touch in the same way that you can on a traditional mixer.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:42:45 pm

Franz.

In the scenario I'm presenting, I don't think Roles would move relative to their mixer assignments. Just because a Role is empty at a given time wouldn't mean that the order of Roles changes or that it would bump another element.

Of course, we're talking in the abstract here about an implementation that I'm only REALLY hoping Apple executes on. The finer points of which I'd leave to an audio engineer.

I can't imagine doing live mixing anymore ;)


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:47:51 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Of course, we're talking in the abstract here about an implementation that I'm only REALLY hoping Apple executes on."

Marcus,

Yes, my point is that the details really matter here and if you're throwing out an old paradigm you're throwing out something that's proven itself in many ways. It doesn't mean something new can't work, but I don't think this is a simple problem, and so far Apple hasn't hinted that it's a problem they're interested in with X.

[Marcus Moore] "I can't imagine doing live mixing anymore ;)"

Judging by the comments here, I think this is a common sentiment. It's interesting to see what new limitations people will accept with X and what they feel is important.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:58:59 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "and so far Apple hasn't hinted that it's a problem they're interested in with X."

For better or worse, Apple never hints at anything publicly.

[Franz Bieberkopf] " It's interesting to see what new limitations people will accept with X and what they feel is important."

That's a fairly negative interpretation. :-) I find it limiting that I have to open up some big old mixing pane to adjust my audio. It's all relative. :-)

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

~ 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: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:22:07 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I find it limiting that I have to open up some big old mixing pane to adjust my audio."

Charlie,

Here's my prediction: when the iPad integration comes for FCPX, everyone will be raving about how important touch and immediate feed-back are.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:29:34 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on May 5, 2014 at 7:31:25 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Charlie,

Here's my prediction: when the iPad integration comes for FCPX, everyone will be raving about how important touch and immediate feed-back are."


lol. probably correct. I don't think anyone is saying touch and immediate feedback aren't important... At least I'm not. I just don't personally care if FCP X has a "mixer" or not. In truth, I'd actually prefer an analog control surface if I'm using faders. My trusty MCU is collecting dust in the corner... :-)

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

~ 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: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:18:21 pm

[Charlie Austin] "In truth, I'd actually prefer an analog control surface if I'm using faders."

Charlie,

... and Adobe and Avid have these options implemented right now. You can use a control surface, an iPad, or choose not to use the mixer at all and keyframe as much as you like.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:30:01 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Charlie,

... and Adobe and Avid have these options implemented right now. You can use a control surface, an iPad, or choose not to use the mixer at all and keyframe as much as you like."


Of course... I guess if I were being more clear, I'd note that my MCU was collecting dust long before FCP X was released. I used it with STP and Logic occasionally, but never in an NLE. To be fair, I also rarely "finish" anything out of my NLE, so that makes a difference I guess... On the occasions that I have though, I never used the faders even in NLE's that had them. Totally personal preference though...

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

~ 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

Mitch Ives
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 9:10:10 pm

[Charlie Austin] " I guess if I were being more clear, I'd note that my MCU was collecting dust long before FCP X was released. I used it with STP and Logic occasionally, but never in an NLE."

I used the hell out of mine with FCP 7...

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: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 9:12:17 pm

[Mitch Ives] "I used the hell out of mine with FCP 7..."

I tried it a few times. Personally it was more trouble than it was worth. Totally subjective. ;-)

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

~ 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

Mitch Ives
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 12:00:01 am

[Charlie Austin] "I tried it a few times. Personally it was more trouble than it was worth. Totally subjective. ;-)"

Worked perfectly here... for years. Everybody loved it. Hell will freeze over before we ever get anything like that in FCP X... too bad.

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

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 12:27:35 am

I don't see control surface support being out of the question.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 4:18:27 am

[Marcus Moore] "I don't see control surface support being out of the question."

I like the way you think...

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: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 1:28:25 am

[Mitch Ives] "Worked perfectly here... for years. Everybody loved it. Hell will freeze over before we ever get anything like that in FCP X... too bad."

Don't get me wrong, it worked perfectly. I just find it faster to stay in the TL and adjust the clips using KB volume adjustments and crossfades etc. rather than switch focus to the faders, software or hardware. It really is just my preference. I think it's be great if X had control surface support of some flavor. I probably wouldn't use it, but clearly some folks would. :-)

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

~ 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

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:01:00 pm

Just to be clear, I've never been much of a live mixer- and have always been happier with the more tedious results from key framing. And that covers my experience across AVID, M100, FCP, and FCPX.

So this isn't a concession I've made specifically for FCPX's sake.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:20:08 pm

[Marcus Moore] "... the more tedious results from key framing."

Marcus,

One way to think of the mixer is as a less-tedious way of keyframing.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:24:58 pm

In all my years of attending ProTools sessions, very very rarely do I see the engineer hot mix audio post.

Recording and input has more hot mixing of course, but hot mixing playback is a rare occurrence.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:36:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In all my years of attending ProTools sessions, very very rarely do I see the engineer hot mix audio post"

Are they running control surfaces like a Control | 24 or ICON? If you are talking about your general, small boutique shop Pro Tools engineer, then you're probably right. OTOH, many Pro Tools engineers doing long-form work frequently mix live, i.e. they write automation passes. Especially if they are old enough that they were mixing before Pro Tools became the norm.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:39:43 pm

I don't know the names of the consoles, but they are there. They are big automated ones that I'm sure cost a very pretty penny.

I'm sure that there are engineers that use faders (duh) but also there are engineers that don't, or don't as much.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:43:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm sure that there are engineers that use faders (duh) but also there are engineers that don't, or don't as much."

Agreed. I've worked with both kinds. Often it's a combination of both approaches. A pre-mix "in the box" and then fader control when the client is there for final review.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:20:18 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm sure that there are engineers that use faders (duh) but also there are engineers that don't, or don't as much."

If I were at a engineer's mixing/mastering session and he was on the faders, I would have very specific questions about dynamics. And if the answers were wrong, I'd leave.

Simple off-the-shelf compressors are measured in milliseconds. That's 1,000 keyframes per second. Engineers and techs talk about serial and parallel loops, gain staging, and dynamics. All that mastered into a stereo pair mp3 for earbuds. It's an amazing creative skill they have.

But really...do we need that kind of audio detail in a video NLE?

A little more mixology and that's probably enough.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:25:11 am

[Richard Herd] "Simple off-the-shelf compressors are measured in milliseconds. That's 1,000 keyframes per second. Engineers and techs talk about serial and parallel loops, gain staging, and dynamics."

Exactly. Honestly, there is not an NLE on the planet that I'd want to do a "real" mix in.

[Richard Herd] "But really...do we need that kind of audio detail in a video NLE? "

No. :-)

[Richard Herd] "A little more mixology and that's probably enough."

Yes.

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

~ 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

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:27:33 am

Agreed. Many people's needs could probably be served by an enhanced, but still relatively limited toolset.

Invariably, the X team must know that after a certain budget or level of production- audio is going out to a DAW no mater what. You're not going to compete with that.

Where that "feature horizon" line is surely hotly debated. Some will always want more within the NLE.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:41:19 am

Alas, the screen cap is CS6 audio.

You can't sidechain, not that I can find, if anyone knows how in the App, please post. I send to Audition for that. Pretty clever mixes are easy enough using subs and a bit of gainstage planning,

I feel like this is the competition for Apple. They have to compete with this ability.

Granted there are some clever mixes possible using Compounds and the dynamics effects in X are rippin' cool!



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 2:51:26 am

[Richard Herd] "But really...do we need that kind of audio detail in a video NLE?

A little more mixology and that's probably enough."


You don't get off that easy, mister!

It's FCPX and everything must be perfect. FCP Legend's audio mixing was ... legendary... especially the ASCII audio filters with exactly zero real time feedback or measurement.

And remember when Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 didn't allow mixing with the mixer during an evolving edit since the keyframes weren't clip based but track and absolute time based? And that this was how it worked until June 2013 when CC was released?

That was a good time.

I guess there were no professionals on CS6 either?


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 5:11:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You don't get off that easy, mister"

Sooo wrong, man. I get off easy.

[Jeremy Garchow] "'s FCPX and everything must be perfect"

In no way do I think it should be perfect, and by "perfect" I mean "a fully featured DAW, aka ProTools," yet the audio in X needs to compete with Premiere CS6, with effects loops and bussing. And that's about it. Granted, there are some very cool techniques with Compounding. Repating myself: Hoping for a Roles Inspector where Roles are inputs. We do not need no stinking tracks. Here's more: we do not need no stinking keyframes!

[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 didn't allow mixing with the mixer during an evolving edit since the keyframes weren't clip based but track and absolute time based? "

Answer: No.

I have not keyframed audio since Sound Track Pro. Why? The compression was easy to get to.


[Jeremy Garchow] "the ASCII audio filters with exactly zero real time feedback or measurement"

Funny. Just Thursday last week, I opened up an old project (7.0.3) from a different editor and the audio was all wonky, so I figured, Hey I'll just use the FCP Legend filter. What a mess! I did not use it...render? really? That's so 2009.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 6:13:15 pm

[Richard Herd] "In no way do I think it should be perfect, and by "perfect" I mean "a fully featured DAW, aka ProTools," yet the audio in X needs to compete with Premiere CS6, "

I was being tongue in cheek about X's perfection and lack therein. I was just comparing Pr CS6 which had a less than perfect software mixer if you needed to do any automation, and how people seem to get work done in CS6 without a clip mixer.




I'm not on the dark side Walter.

More often than not, this is the music going through my head:







Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 6:20:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCP Legend's audio mixing was ... legendary... especially the ASCII audio filters with exactly zero real time feedback or measurement."

Jeremy,

I have a list of issues with FCPs audio capabilities; I suspect you already know many of them.

I'm not sure which filters you're referring to but some of them have real time feedback on parameters.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 6:24:19 pm

You know what I'm saying Franz. FCP7's audio mixing will go down with the Legend of FCS3.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 8:52:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "the Legend of FCS3"

Here is the multiband compressor, in Legend.



And here is Audition's.



Just sayin'. X gotta compete.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 8:56:46 pm

[Richard Herd] "Just sayin'. X gotta compete."

I say "no". Just gotta go to an audio house! If I had to spend time to set that up, it would be more efficient for me to send it out and keep working on something else. Impressive, but not for me. I'm a video editor. YMMV.

:-)

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 9:13:59 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "would be more efficient for me to send it out "

CMD-8 in X is very powerful indeed. But the stuff I'm posting about is already in PP.cs6 and was well used in Sound Track Pro. It's not like these features are outside the skill set of the picture editor.

Just in case anyone with any power is paying attention to this pleb, I'll say it again: Roles Inspector where the roles are treated as inputs into a mixer. ;)


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 9:10:09 pm

[Richard Herd] "And here is Audition's."

Which is also available in Premiere Pro CC, BTW. The MBC in PPro CS6 ins't half bad either.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 9:14:48 pm
Last Edited By Richard Herd on May 6, 2014 at 9:18:13 pm

WOW! I wish I wish I wish for CC. Soon but not yet.

What about Dynamics Processor and side chain input, is that in CC (currently it is in CS6 Audition)? Just curious Since everything I output is crunched to -12 dB I spend quite a bit of energy gain staging the compression.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 11:15:39 pm

[Richard Herd] "WOW! I wish I wish I wish for CC. Soon but not yet.

What about Dynamics Processor and side chain input, is that in CC (currently it is in CS6 Audition)? Just curious Since everything I output is crunched to -12 dB I spend quite a bit of energy gain staging the compression."


Unfortunately, no. The Dynamics Processor and side chain input are still only available in Audition... kind of strange when you think about it, really... I'll submit a feature request.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 7, 2014 at 1:19:40 am

[Richard Herd] "Just sayin'. X gotta compete."

I'm all for it.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 8:55:53 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In all my years of attending ProTools sessions, very very rarely do I see the engineer hot mix audio post."

Jeremy,

Pretty much all I see in mixing theatres is live automation control via faders. This includes some live automation of effects parameters on rare occasion.

Also, though I almost never finish sound mixes for picture on my system, I much prefer to have the automation surfaces there to do (temp) mixing. When I don't have one, I'm constantly using the software faders.

When I watch colourists with control surfaces, they're using their hands and reacting immediately to what they see on screen and scopes. It's the same principle. But then not everyone uses dedicated hardware control for colour either.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 9:04:18 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] " When I don't have one, I'm constantly using the software faders."

FCPX has "software faders" too. They aren't as logical to use as a software mixer, they don't look like an audio console, you can only adjust one clip at a time, but they are there and work in real time (and you can sort of record keyframes with it).

With FCP 10.1 selecting and moving groups of keyframes in the timeline is super easy.

I'm not saying audio mixing is great in FCPX, it isn't and there is massive room for improvement, but it's not all bad, either.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 2:50:44 pm

Logic X integration is bad because FCPXML isn't well supported in Logic yet.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 3:47:24 am

110 days this Tuesday. Apple's guidance is 3-4 months.

This month, I'd wager. Before WWDC.


Return to posts index

ron darby
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:42:49 am

What's wrong with adding tracks if it's optional. If you don't like it then you don't have it use them , you can forget there even there, but more people might start buying FCPx and may be then Apple would give it more attention .
I would go back.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 7:58:48 am

[ron darby] "What's wrong with adding tracks if it's optional. If you don't like it then you don't have it use them"

Nothing wrong per se, except it goes against the entire way that X functions, and would probably require re-writing a large part of the app. If you need "tracks", secondary storylines work. Unless you feel you need *fixed* tracks.

[ron darby] "but more people might start buying FCPx and may be then Apple would give it more attention "

Why do you think they're not giving it any attention?

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

~ 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

David Mathis
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 12:28:06 pm

They could add tracks, but it would be subscription only just like . . . :-)

Dodging food and other objects being thrown in my direction.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 2:36:48 pm

Why are the editors dead set against tracks so enthusiastic about Roles? There wouldn't be a need for roles if Apple hadn't eliminated tracks. Roles are just adding another step to do what you can already do without them in every other NLE.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 2:49:32 pm

Right now there's a flexibility to the way the timeline works; I'm not concerned about how to pull apart the middle of a complex edit. Elements move where they need to so that I can work on the primary focus of my story without audio or video track conflicts getting in my way.

Roles provides and organization element which isn't dependant to a strict horizontally stacked order. Yes you have to assign Roles (those which FCPX doesn't auto-assign, which is most), but that up-front work pays off in not having to manage those elements all the way thru the edit.

Roles provide the same benefit in the Project that Keyword and Smart collections provide in the Event Browser.

My big request is for Roles tagging to be used to visually organize audio and video elements in the timeline, and for mixing purposes. When they do that, I don't see any advantages to the track system, and all the benefit the fluidity of the FCPX timeline provides.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 5:50:53 pm

[Marcus Moore] "When they do that, I don't see any advantages to the track system ..."


Marcus,

... a mixer and real-time mixing.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 5:03:01 pm

"Why are the editors dead set against tracks so enthusiastic about Roles? There wouldn't be a need for roles if Apple hadn't eliminated tracks. Roles are just adding another step to do what you can already do without them in every other NLE."

A couple of reasons:

1. Tracks are a random system. Some editors have the first 4 tracks as camera-audio, other ones only have the first 2 for dialogue, etcetera etcetera. You just have to 'know'.
Roles are based on content. It's a kind of combination of artistry (content) and technical (organization).
It's Dialogue. Music. Titles. Sound Effects. And you can make your own. But again, these will be very recognizable immediately.

2. Tracks get in your way while editing. Clip collisions, patching, we all know the drill. You cannot just put stuff on the timeline, just like you want.
Roles and the magnetic timeline is a system, where you put metadata on clips. You can do it in your Event Browser, and you can immediately click for instance 100 clips, and give them the same role in one click. Once you do that, you are done. You can still change it in the timeline, or you can only start putting Roles-metadata on clips once you've finished the edit. But at no point you will need to patch, look out when extending stuff, look out when you change stuff around, ...

3. It makes the whole exporting a lot faster. Because Roles help for audio, but you can also use it for titles, subtitles, etc. ...

Don't forget FCPX already does this automatically on import, and has a pretty transparant system in doing this.

That's what people mean by wanting FCPX to be a better FCPX, and not to have tracks (Jeremy). Yes, we want color coded Roles. Yes, we want an audio mixer based on Roles, available in the timeline. Yes, we want horizontal grouping by Roles.
But once we have these things, I don't see why you would prefer tracks.

In fact, I showed a demo of FCPX to a whole room of skeptics. When I showed them the power of Roles, and said how I would do stuff in FCPX, and said "in 7 you would have to do all this and this and this..." and all of them laughed. In a good way of 'yeah, we know the pain'. When we showed them the power of FCPX, together with something like Sync 'N Link, we *really* could hear some people gasp in the room, like "wow, can we make it all so fast?"

Someone here once said, and I think it was Bill Davis, but I could be wrong: Tracks are a work-around for not having a magnetic timeline and Roles. I'm inclined to believe that, after my experience.
It's a different way of looking at things, but once people started using graphical interfaces, started using touch screens on an iPhone instead of Blackberry's, etc. etc. it all needed that kind of 'click' because it was something completely new.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 2:40:13 pm

As Charlie says below, tracks aren't possible to integrate with the other two principal paradigms of FCPX; connected clips and the magnetic timeline. Its an entirely different philosophy of clip management.

And I'd question your second statement- there's no indication that FCPX isn't selling. It may not be selling to all markets in equal measure, but Apple's released statement of 1million+ installs isn't "bad" by any measure, and is in fact much faster adoption than Legacy FCP. So I don't see how Apple isn't motivated to continue to develop it as they have been.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 5:58:47 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on May 5, 2014 at 6:15:10 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Apple's released statement of 1million+ installs isn't "bad" by any measure, and is in fact much faster adoption than Legacy FCP."

Marcus,

One million in just under three years is pretty weak by some measures - particularly when you consider the number of users of FCP 6-7 that they haven't been able to "upgrade" or "convert".

It also suggests that they're (still) competing with developers like Avid and Adobe (and now Blackmagic etc.) where there was some initial speculation that they were attempting to expand and appeal to other types of users.

Franz.

Edit:

[Marcus Moore] "... and is in fact much faster adoption than Legacy FCP."

I'm not sure that's true, but you should also consider these figures in the context of overall Mac sales - I think Apple now sells about 4 or 5 times as many Macs in any given period compared to when FCP was released.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:15:53 pm

Franz,

Until we get some better idea of specifically how many users are using competing NLE platforms, I think any judgement of the 1mil+ number is entirely lacking in a frame of reference.

Adobe's most recent announcement of 1.8million CC subscribers from March is for ALL products; and I wouldn't even hazard to guess what percentage of those people are Premier users versus those in graphics, audio, web, photography, graphic design, or publishing. I think HALF would be very generous.

Considering that more than a decade of Legacy FCP development lead to 2 million licences, FCPX is on track to be far more successful than is predecessor.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 5, 2014 at 6:28:10 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Until we get some better idea of specifically how many users are using competing NLE platforms, I think any judgement of the 1mil+ number is entirely lacking in a frame of reference."

All these numbers completely lack a frame of reference. I own FCP 7, FCP X, MC 7, and I rent PrCC. They all get to count me as a licensed user. Only one of those gets to count me as someone who prefers to use their NLE. It doesn't mean squat...

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

~ 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
NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 6:33:56 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Until we get some better idea of specifically how many users are using competing NLE platforms, I think any judgement of the 1mil+ number is entirely lacking in a frame of reference."

Marcus,

We've discussed this before. Recent reports are thus:

- Adobe Premiere Pro, 2.5 million (Fall 2012)
- FCP 1-7, 2 million (NAB 2011)
- FCP X, 1 million (NAB 2014)
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67769

- Avid 3 million (NAB 2014)
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67876
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67797

[Marcus Moore] "Adobe's most recent announcement of 1.8million CC subscribers from March is for ALL products; and I wouldn't even hazard to guess what percentage of those people are Premier users versus those in graphics, audio, web, photography, graphic design, or publishing. I think HALF would be very generous."

Adobe was reporting 2.5 million "seats" and "number of users" for Premiere Pro in 2012. I suppose they may have lost two-thirds of their users since then, but if you're claiming that you should probably support it.
If you're going to qualify in some way about "current users" then this qualification should be applied to FCPX as well.

http://www.beet.tv/2012/09/adobepremiere.html
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67774

[Marcus Moore] "Considering that more than a decade of Legacy FCP development lead to 2 million licences, FCPX is on track to be far more successful than is predecessor."

Again, I think you should also consider this in context of the number of Macs that sold in the decade of FCP 1-7 vs. current sales.

http://lowendmac.com/musings/10mm/record-mac-sales.html
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/30/steve-jobs-pcs-trucks-apple-aapl/

My squinting guestimate is that Apple has probably sold maybe twice as many Macs in the 3 years of FCPX as it did in the decade of FCP1-7. I'd be interested in more exact numbers if anyone has the resources.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 6:49:35 pm

Hey Franz- yes that was us last month.

I don't think I'm claiming that Adobe has lost any users.

But how do you reconcile the difference between last year's 2.5 million Premier users and last months 1.8 million CC subscribers (that's from their earning report)?

I think the answer is pretty simple- Adobe is counting ALL Premier users, and not just those on CC. So that would include anyone using Premier from ANY Legacy CS package.

IF that's the case (and it's the only way it makes sense to me), then the comparable number would be to add Apple's 1mil+ FCPX to the number of remaining Legacy FCP users (2mil - however many have left or migrated).


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 6:53:55 pm

Also to clarify, the Avid number of 3 million users is a total for all of Avid's products, whether Media Composer, Pro Tools, ISIS or an old copy of Avid Xpress. At least that's the answer given at Avid Connect. So it isn't purely Media Composer licenses.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 6:58:00 pm

Oliver,

Thanks, that was not clear from the previous discussion.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 7:03:21 pm

I think this is just another pointer to me that I think people have an over inflated sense of the size of our industry. I just don't think the number are that huge for anyone.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 7:06:45 pm

[Marcus Moore] "... I think people have an over inflated sense of the size of our industry."

Marcus,

Agreed. And this concedes the point that FCP X competes for users in "our industry".

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 6, 2014 at 1:54:46 am

I agree it is. But I think that it may be expanding it market in lower tiers, people who may have found Legacy FCP daunting. Certainly coming from a current version of iMovie, FCPX is a easy stepping stone.

I'll be perfectly honest that I believe FCPX will continue to shed some higher-end marketshare and build a bigger base in the bottom half of the market for another couple of years.

But as the feature set continues to grow it will be applicable to more and more workflows.

The only way FCP goes away is if Apple decides to walk away. They certainly have deeper pockets to spend on this horse than anyone else. But everything I've heard is that the team is very committed to the product.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 6, 2014 at 11:36:55 am

[Marcus Moore] "FCPX will continue to shed some higher-end marketshare and build a bigger base in the bottom half of the market for another couple of years."

Agreed. I think that already has happened. And I think the "high-end" market-share is probably growing slowly now as so many ditched X when it first was release.


[Marcus Moore] "The only way FCP goes away is if Apple decides to walk away."

Agreed again. Just another good reminder to know as many of these NLE's as possible.

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 1:06:24 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Marcus Moore] "... I think people have an over inflated sense of the size of our industry."

Marcus,

Agreed. And this concedes the point that FCP X competes for users in "our industry"."


I still think it's interesting that manufactures think X competes for "our industry"

I keep seeing it in ads like this when they could have chose any other NLE

Who is the CION aimed at?

I think they know something



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 1:36:25 pm

[tony west] "Who is the CION aimed at?"

CION is aimed at the uppermost tier of this industry. It lacks ENG features and requires very expensive glass. It is geared to film DPs. A fraction of the amount of X users will ever come close to a CION.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 1:55:05 pm

[Oliver Peters] "CION is aimed at the uppermost tier of this industry."

I'm not sure I understand your thinking on this. It seems to be lower priced than the higher end RED, Arri and Sony cameras used in features. I would think it's much more of a mid priced camera. Granted it needs some pricy add ons (doesn't come with view finder for example) but it doesn't seem that it would cost anywhere near "uppermost tier."

[Oliver Peters] "It lacks ENG features "

Maybe so but it felt very comfortable on my shoulder. I could see it being used in Docs and Reality TV.

While it comes with PL Mount, I understand that's removable to allow for third party lens mounts for other lens types so one wouldn't be limited to PL glass.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 3:47:27 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I'm not sure I understand your thinking on this. It seems to be lower priced than the higher end RED, Arri and Sony cameras used in features. I would think it's much more of a mid priced camera."

My point is merely that to play in this area, the cost of the camera body is frequently the smallest issue. For example, an ARRI AMIRA starts at 25K Euros, but to get a decent package in the US is over $60K with camera options. Then add 10s of K's for lenses. The same person who buys a Panasonic 250 or a Canon 7D probably isn't the customer for the CION, even if the body cost $0.

OTOH, if you've already invested in a C300, for instance, and have the right pieces and glass, then adding a CION to the arsenal for 4K work might not be a big stretch.

In any case, I see absolutely no correlation between CION and FCP X. It makes no sense, because "inexpensive" does not equal "ubiquitous". So what if it generates ProRes and is easy to edit with FCP X? The same can be said if you cut with Premiere Pro CC or for that matter Media Composer and eventually Resolve 11.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 4:06:11 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In any case, I see absolutely no correlation between CION and FCP X"

There isn't so I'm not sure why you seem to single it out.

[Oliver Peters] "The same person who buys a Panasonic 250 or a Canon 7D probably isn't the customer for the CION, even if the body cost $0.

OTOH, if you've already invested in a C300, for instance, and have the right pieces and glass, then adding a CION to the arsenal for 4K work might not be a big stretch."


But the body is thousands less than the higher tier cameras and I know some who will cut corners on the body before they cut corners on glass... if a corner needs to be cut. The price difference might cover part of the cost for another lens. As you certainly know, good glass has much better longevity than camera bodies.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 5:28:33 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There isn't so I'm not sure why you seem to single it out."

I didn't. Tony did.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robert Gilman
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 6:49:18 pm

It looks to me like Tony didn't either. He just pointed out the the CION ad singled out FCPX by using it rather than some other NLE. IMO that's the intriguing point.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 1:55:17 pm
Last Edited By tony west on May 7, 2014 at 2:01:56 pm

[Oliver Peters] "A fraction of the amount of X users will ever come close to a CION."

They must think CION users may cut on X

That's why they put it in that ad


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 1:58:05 pm

[tony west] "They must think CION users will may cut on X

That's why they put it in that ad"


There are certainly X users who cut RED and Arri footage. Granted that might not be a big portion of X users but I'm not sure if the bulk of Premier Pro users are doing that either.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 7:09:46 pm

[tony west] "They must think CION users may cut on X
That's why they put it in that ad"


I doubt it. AJA has a very tight relationship with Apple and a number of their products are and have been co-developed. They have also licensed ProRes for use in the camera by way of the KiPro technology. It's in their interest to cross-promote Apple products, especially when Apple is making a big deal out of 4K. They certainly aren't going to stick Resolve into the ad ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 2:13:47 am

[Oliver Peters] "[tony west] "They must think CION users may cut on X
That's why they put it in that ad"

I doubt it. AJA has a very tight relationship with Apple and a number of their products are and have been co-developed. They have also licensed ProRes for use in the camera by way of the KiPro technology. It's in their interest to cross-promote Apple products, especially when Apple is making a big deal out of 4K. They certainly aren't going to stick Resolve into the ad ;-)"


I don't know O, I usually follow your logic on these threads but you lost me on this one.


They wanted to put a product in their ads for their new camera that they think nobody wants to use?

They don't believe in X, but they decided to just stick that product in their ad?

Uh uh


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 12:56:37 pm

"They wanted to put a product in their ads for their new camera that they think nobody wants to use?
They don't believe in X, but they decided to just stick that product in their ad?"


Or maybe it's written into their contract with Apple. Or maybe they have a co-op advertising arrangement. They have a long corporate arrangement on many levels with Apple. That's most likely the reason it shows up in the ad and in other instances of their website, brochures and collateral material across numerous products. There's a natural tie-in. Apple promotes 4K editing. The camera shoots 4K.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 2:27:50 pm

[Oliver Peters] " Apple promotes 4K editing. The camera shoots 4K."

Exactly, sounds like X will work just fine with their new camera and maybe they think it will also, regardless of any agreement they may have. Maybe they think others will to.

All I know is, if I'm another NLE, I would have liked to have seen my product in that ad.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 2:35:40 pm

[tony west] "Exactly, sounds like X will work just fine with their new camera and maybe they think it will also, regardless of any agreement they may have. Maybe they think others will to."

Of course, it will work fine with the camera. Why wouldn't it? You are dealing with 4K ProRes, not raw or another codec. After all, they are using an Apple-licensed codec and recording hardware co-developed with Apple. If it were a matter of the user numbers, they'd show Premiere Pro in the screen grab.

My point is merely that there are reasons you see the X interface on the laptop, because of things that have little to do with the specific attributes of the NLE. Rather, it has everything to do with synergistic corporate relationships and not promoting the competition (such as if a Resolve UI had been shown).

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 2:37:59 pm

companies pay big money to be included in films and advertising.
A company doesnt advertise or do P.r. unless it needs too.
Apples sexy high end market has been shrinking and they need to counter that thus the cion ad.

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 3:05:20 pm

Maybe it's just me but it's hard to fathom Apple getting into this kind of relationship with a third party. The only thing I can think of is that AJA got some kind of deal on ProRes licensing in return for this "consideration" in their product marketing.

I'm not sure that people purchasing in the AJA "price range/market" are influenced by what NLE they see in a product shot.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 5:13:50 pm

[Craig Seeman] "The only thing I can think of is that AJA got some kind of deal on ProRes licensing in return for this "consideration" in their product marketing"

If you look at their historical marketing, Mac-specific products like IO and KONA were always shown with FCP "legacy" screen grabs.

[Craig Seeman] "I'm not sure that people purchasing in the AJA "price range/market" are influenced by what NLE they see in a product shot."

Yes and no. One of the big things people buying cameras are concerned about is workflow. One of the reasons that ARRI has been successful with ALEXA - even though one could argue for more resolution with RED - is that ARRI paid attention to post workflow as part of their marketing campaign.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 5:42:34 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If you look at their historical marketing, Mac-specific products like IO and KONA were always shown with FCP "legacy" screen grabs."

At the time FCP legacy was a big role player in higher end workflows. As much as I love and prefer FCPX the market, for various reasons, isn't at that point (yet).

[Oliver Peters] "One of the big things people buying cameras are concerned about is workflow."

But some have argued that FCPX has no specific advantage here as ProRes playback is widely supported. Granted Avid doesn't seem to support 4K sources yet as I understand it.

Do you think PPro CC users would be influenced by seeing FCPX with CION? I don't.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 5:51:50 pm

[Craig Seeman] "But some have argued that FCPX has no specific advantage here as ProRes playback is widely supported. Granted Avid doesn't seem to support 4K sources yet as I understand it."

Which includes the comments I've made. This means any NLE could appear in the ad. Of course, that gets us back to "why FCPX?" And I've been arguing that there's simply more to this decision than meets the eye.

Regarding Avid (Media Composer specifically), it absolutely supports 4K (and higher) source media in current versions, thanks to AMA and FrameFlex. The limitation is that timelines, transcodes and final outputs are currently restricted to a max of 1920x1080.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 5:54:34 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Granted Avid doesn't seem to support 4K sources yet as I understand it."

Small correction here: Avid supports 4k sources, it simply downconverts everything to 1080 or 720 for output. So I guess technically your statement should be: "Avid doesn't support 4k output yet." I do believe they're working on resolution independence, however, based on a recent conversation I had with one of their engineers.

Chris Conlee


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 7:52:28 pm

you could be right but this ad benefits apple more than cion.
newbiees will associate fcpx with this camera and will think that its the only nle for that camera.

Apple is thinking of the future.

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 8, 2014 at 8:15:28 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "you could be right but this ad benefits apple more than cion.
newbiees will associate fcpx with this camera and will think that its the only nle for that camera."


Unless they read the product brochure...



Shawn



Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 7:06:09 pm

[Oliver Peters] "A fraction of the amount of X users will ever come close to a CION."

...and Media Composer, Premiere, Vegas...

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 8:23:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[tony west] "Who is the CION aimed at?"

CION is aimed at the uppermost tier of this industry. It lacks ENG features and requires very expensive glass. It is geared to film DPs. A fraction of the amount of X users will ever come close to a CION."


I'm not so sure that's entirely correct, Oliver. I agree that this camera is aimed at filmmakers, but it seems like more of a budget "cinema camera" that isn't aimed at DSLR shooters. I see it as an owner/operator/inexpensive rental camera. I think there's a lot of pent up demand for sub 10k cameras that; have better than DSLR ergonomics, shoot lightly compressed CODECS, have greater than 8bit color depth and have professional i/o options (HD-SDI, phantom powered XLR, TC, etc). Higher dynamic range also seems to be higher on the list for budget digital cinema shooters than it used to be. I think the CION meets all of these requirements, as does the Ursa... if it ever ships. :-)

[Oliver Peters] "I doubt it. AJA has a very tight relationship with Apple and a number of their products are and have been co-developed. They have also licensed ProRes for use in the camera by way of the KiPro technology. It's in their interest to cross-promote Apple products, especially when Apple is making a big deal out of 4K. They certainly aren't going to stick Resolve into the ad ;-)"

Totally agree, AJA has always been an Apple centric company. I don't see their use of FCPX in an ad, as a sign that they 'know something' that the rest of us don't. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 7, 2014 at 9:46:59 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I agree that this camera is aimed at filmmakers, but it seems like more of a budget "cinema camera" that isn't aimed at DSLR shooters."

Sure. We are probably saying the same thing. I'm going with what the AJA folks said in terms of their design criteria. Namely, that it's a camera designed to make DPs happy.

[Shawn Miller] "Totally agree, AJA has always been an Apple centric company. I don't see their use of FCPX in an ad, as a sign that they 'know something' that the rest of us don't. :-)"

Also, according to AJA, this camera was in development, from concept until now, for 5 years. A bit before FCP X ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 9, 2014 at 4:23:46 am

[Shawn Miller] "I'm not so sure that's entirely correct, Oliver. I agree that this camera is aimed at filmmakers, but it seems like more of a budget "cinema camera" that isn't aimed at DSLR shooters. I see it as an owner/operator/inexpensive rental camera. I think there's a lot of pent up demand for sub 10k cameras that; have better than DSLR ergonomics, shoot lightly compressed CODECS, have greater than 8bit color depth and have professional i/o options (HD-SDI, phantom powered XLR, TC, etc). Higher dynamic range also seems to be higher on the list for budget digital cinema shooters than it used to be. I think the CION meets all of these requirements, as does the Ursa... if it ever ships. :-)"

A version of the Cion with an EF mount would change things quite a bit... just saying...

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

Shawn Miller
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 9, 2014 at 4:50:58 pm

[Mitch Ives] "[Shawn Miller] "I'm not so sure that's entirely correct, Oliver. I agree that this camera is aimed at filmmakers, but it seems like more of a budget "cinema camera" that isn't aimed at DSLR shooters. I see it as an owner/operator/inexpensive rental camera. I think there's a lot of pent up demand for sub 10k cameras that; have better than DSLR ergonomics, shoot lightly compressed CODECS, have greater than 8bit color depth and have professional i/o options (HD-SDI, phantom powered XLR, TC, etc). Higher dynamic range also seems to be higher on the list for budget digital cinema shooters than it used to be. I think the CION meets all of these requirements, as does the Ursa... if it ever ships. :-)"

A version of the Cion with an EF mount would change things quite a bit... just saying..."


Agreed!

Shawn



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 9, 2014 at 10:59:58 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I think there's a lot of pent up demand for sub 10k cameras that; have better than DSLR ergonomics, shoot lightly compressed CODECS, have greater than 8bit color depth and have professional i/o options (HD-SDI, phantom powered XLR, TC, etc). Higher dynamic range also seems to be higher on the list for budget digital cinema shooters than it used to be. "

you'd miss the crappy sd digibeta anamorphic with a prime for the fancy shoot.
it's pure mad how competitive cameras are now.

Just as well FCPX's broader mission failed our end eh?

Sure as the avid man says - as long as you have to click on the keyframe to make it pink in the viewer to activate the keyframe adjustment, there is a finger in the dyke.

you'd wonder about that.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 10, 2014 at 1:51:09 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Just as well FCPX's broader mission failed our end eh?"

Define "our end". It's working pretty damn good on "our end"!

;-)

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 12, 2014 at 6:11:23 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you'd miss the crappy sd digibeta anamorphic with a prime for the fancy shoot.
it's pure mad how competitive cameras are now."


It really is isn't it? I'm just hoping this means that we're making some headway in the war against 4:2:0, 8bit video!

Shawn



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 6:57:21 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on May 5, 2014 at 7:03:55 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I think the answer is pretty simple- Adobe is counting ALL Premier users, and not just those on CC. So that would include anyone using Premier from ANY Legacy CS package."

Marcus,

It isn't clear to me, but one way to interpret him would be all Premiere Pro users (discounting Premiere.) He also mentions 5 or 5.5 at the beginning of the interview, so maybe he uses that as the cut-off point.

Likely he's using a broad, vague qualification that allows him the largest number.

On the other hand, Apple made no claims about users of 10.1 - by your logic, shouldn't that be the cut-off for "current" users?

Edit: ... and in any case, FCP 1-7 and FCP X are (uncontroversially, I think) considered different NLEs, not an extension or upgrade.

All the numbers should be taken as what they are - which isn't much except maybe an upper limit. I agree we should question the claims and try to clarify, but that applies to Apple's number as well.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: NLE Numbers - Once Again
on May 5, 2014 at 7:15:28 pm

I don't think 10.1 should be considered a different application than 10.0.9. They're not different enough to merit that distinction. And while you're right Legacy FCP is an entirely different NLE, those are still Apple and FCP users until they upgrade or migrate to something else.

If we're going to get that specific, how many premier users that are in the middle of productions aren't updated to the latest version either?


Return to posts index

Craig Shamwell
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 6:21:39 am

I think any talk of bringing back any kind of Traditional Track Based format as the conversation has tilted towards is ridiculous!
Again, as some say "this is a whole new way of editing", this is just not true! One of the best editing systems that has been around for years(Video Toaster) has worked the same way as FCPX has, which is now Tricaster. While there are visible lines that seem to form tracks, just as in FCPX you can move and put any kind of media anywhere in the editing window! Those who edit with these systems are of course outside the boundaries of those posting here in this forum, but Tricaster is used in high end production houses and Mobile Applications as well. Look up reviews and no where do you hear editors complaining...why?...because its so fast and easy to get content created!
Sure there are some things in FCPX that need a work around, but even those things are done with ease and quickness and FCPX makes up for it by how fast you can edit. Furthermore it is clear that some editors have not taken time to know and take advantage of all of FCPX tools to perform what they think the can't.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 5:39:30 pm

Am I the only one that hears the scooby doo theme song when they read this post?

10 point one point two, where are you? We've got some work to do now....


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 5:51:36 pm

[Bret Williams] "Am I the only one that hears the scooby doo theme song when they read this post?"



yes

:-D


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 5:55:48 pm

[Bret Williams] "Am I the only one that hears the scooby doo theme song when they read this post?"

[Jeremy Garchow] "yes :-D"

Bret, don't mind Jeremy on this. Reading his last couple posts, I think this music follows him everywhere he goes! :)







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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 5:57:51 pm

I'm hearing the Car 54 theme myself.









Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?
on May 6, 2014 at 6:16:48 pm

LOL Never really thought about it at first, now the song is stuck in my head!


Return to posts index

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