FORUMS: list search recent posts

Audio editing in FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
TImothy Auld
Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 1:34:00 am

OK, I just said in another post that dialogue editing in FCPX is like wrestling a bull to the ground by its balls. And I got no push back. I am seriously worried about the mental and physical health of some regular posters here.

Tim


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 1:48:09 am

it's a delicate time.







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


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 1:59:13 am

Indeed. Maybe the bee pit isn't that bad after all.

Tim


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 1, 2014 at 8:03:31 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Indeed. Maybe the bee pit isn't that bad after all.
"


Word for word, that is exactly what I was about to write!


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 2:13:09 pm

Andreas,

Help me out here. Am I supposed to be the crocodile, the plover, or the wildebeest?

I think I relate mostly to the person who wrote this "Story". The writer takes a dwindling mud puddle and turns it into a wonderful, dramatic life or death struggle with characters and conflicts as clear as any Shakespearian play. Great stuff. By the way, I think it was edited on film!!! :)



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 1, 2014 at 3:24:30 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "Help me out here. Am I supposed to be the crocodile, the plover, or the wildebeest? "

good question. I did post it in the wee small hours, so one might draw a bachelder conclusion..

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


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 1:49:06 am
Last Edited By Craig Seeman on May 31, 2014 at 1:49:30 am

Shhhh!
We're all busy editing dialogue and I just grabbed the bull by the....



Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 2:06:35 am

It might look something like this. Gets interesting at around 2:30.







"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 4:53:57 am

Probably, Tim, because you have such a long and pretty consistent history of arguing X is "deficient" that some of us simply expect it from you. I know you don't cut on X every day, so i just dont give your opinion that much weight about its suitability for something so individual as dialog cutting. I agree, you surely can't cut on it the way you prefer. Others can and do every day. Your needs or just preferences may be much more sophisticated than theirs. Or not. But so what?

Those "it sucks and any REAL editor knows it" posts sound to me mostly like sour grapes today.

I read them in the tone of a grumpy neighbor who complains every time I see them about how totally incompetent the "government" is in all things - then really freaks out when their social security check doesn't arrive on the 3rd of the month like it has every month for the past 20 years. It makes me chuckle.

Personally, I'm "head down" studying for my 3rd Apple FCP X formal certification in advance of a lucerative short-term summer contract teaching the program to the in-house editing staff of a local inter-agency government group. That will kick off my summer nicely..

Combine that with the new Library Manager 2.0 update from Artic Whiteness that hit last week - essentially giving me what amounts to a subset of Disk Catalog JUST for my distributed X Libraries - and I couldn't be happier heading into another FCP X "summer of fun.".

I feel for those struggling (like my July clients who are watching their Legacy systems having more and more problems) and feeling extra blessed not only that I left all that behind 3 years ago - but that now I get to help them do the same.

In any group photo - I'm likely the editor who's ahead of schedule and smiling these days. That's enough for me.

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


TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 12:57:37 pm

It was a joke, Bill. Like any other tool I have, I use it if it fits the job.

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 7:21:21 am

[TImothy Auld] "And I got no push back."

OK, I'll bite. :-) What specifically do you not like about it?

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

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 12:28:19 pm

[Charlie Austin] "OK, I'll bite. :-) What specifically do you not like about it?"

Here ya go, Charlie: "Well, it's not like FCP7, of course!"

;-)

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


Return to posts index


Nick Toth
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 12:52:16 pm

When I see a post like this I think two things:

1. Just doesn't get it.
2. Never really tried.

How's that?

anickt


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 9:56:36 pm

You don't know me. And while I know we're not to post about the poster here (which I think you just did) I have to say:

Never had an original thought.

Never tried to.

Tim


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 2:34:55 pm

I find that grabbing them by the balls is the easiest way to wrestle 'em to the ground.

:P


Return to posts index


Mark Smith
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 4:30:54 pm

Its funny, I always felt like an idiot editing sound in FCP7 as it usually took me a few swings to get an edit right. When I started editing in X the first thing that jumped out at me was precision which with I could edit audio without much effort, and this was on my first project when I hardly knew WTF I was doing with the program.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 4:36:47 pm

[Mark Smith] ..."was precision which with I could edit audio without much effort,"

Yep. I think what people have trouble with is managing connections. It's totally do-able, even in projects with dozens of layered clips, but it does require a different approach than a tracked timeline. Not saying it couldn't be improved, because it certainly could, but it's pretty simple once you get your head around it. And way more precise.

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

~ 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

Mark Smith
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 4:44:44 pm

Agreed about connection management. That was the stickiest thing for me to deal with in learning X. I jet watched my wife, who was one of those " they will pry FCP7 from my cold dying hands" people transition to X. Managing connections was her biggest headache to learn, and unlearning stacking up tracks like she would do in 7 took a while unlearn.
She's a far happier camper now that she knows how to move things around quickly and her time lines are much more simple than when she started out. I like that once you get the idea, X is a far better organizational system and the app sort of gets out of your way and lets you get on with what you are there to do, which is the creative work of editing.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 4:49:50 pm

[Charlie Austin] "And way more precise."

Charlie,

It's unclear what you are talking about here. What is more precise than what, and how?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 5:13:18 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "What is more precise than what, and how?"

For me, the ability to move and trim clips in subframe increments without changing "modes" is really nice. Also Compound Clips are nice, in that I can cut together dialog and then comp all the tiny syllables I've stitched together into a CC, either audio only, or with picture turning it back into a "normal" clip. If it's got picture, I can then expand the A/V, trim the pix to length leaving an audio J or L cut, then close it up. I can break it apart in the timeline if I need to.

Also like the fact that I can do manual A/B crossfades on music in a single secondary, again using expanded A/V. The fact that secondaries can ripple independently of the primary is very useful. Being able to select a group of non-overlapping clips that are scattered anywhere in the timeline and pop them all into a secondary with a keystroke is really nice. Adding connected clips to an existing secondary in the same way is really nice too.

I know of no NLE in which I can search for audio clips in an index, select them, which selects them in the TL, and with a keystroke put them all on the same "track", no matter where they were in the sequence.

One can (and probably will lol) argue that similar things can be accomplished in any NLE, but it's just easier in X. For me.

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

~ 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: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 6:09:54 pm

Charlie,

Thanks, I didn't understand how connection management made audio editing more precise, but I see you're really just talking in terms of what you see as more flexibility.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 6:43:15 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Thanks, I didn't understand how connection management made audio editing more precise, but I see you're really just talking in terms of what you see as more flexibility."

Yep... :-) I can do subframe trims/move in Pr using "Audio Units" mode. But why do I need to switch modes at all? Personally I find doing it in X easier and more flexible. And wrangling connections is a bear if you try to work in a "track" mindset. (see what I did there?). FCP X TL organization can definitely use improvement, but it's not inherently more difficult, it's just wildly different. The biggest complaints I hear are usually regarding MX beds. You cut it, and you don't want it to move unexpectedly. So... either cut in a secondary(s), or comp it. If you need to move sections with the pix, just cut the secondary so the parts "stick" to their respect sections, move stuff, fine tune it, and then gather it all back into one secondary if you want. Or don't. Easy.

Same with say, adding a title effects to cards throughout a cut. Just cut them connected, and then when your done, if you want them all to appear in a "track", select 'em in the TL or with the index, CMD-G, done. If pinned to the head, your secondary acts like a track, but you can move it, cut it, add/subtract clips etc real really simply.

The other issue I had is the situation where an effect to something is timed to a clip, but maybe the effect ends before, or starts after, the primary clip it's associated with. That drove me nuts. but then, d'oh!, just make it a secondary and add some pre/post gap to extend it and connect it to the proper clip. One and done, and it'll stick there 'til you choose to break the connection.

Te aforementioned dialog cheat comping with the pix is awesome. Selecting all the dissolves in a cut using the index and changing duration, style, deleting 'em... awesome.

Like I said, you can do similar things in any NLE, and there are definitely things in X that need, uh... fine tuning ;-) But it's not the monster some folks believe it is. I cut (and temp mix) really complex audio beds with no problem at all... YMMV ;-)

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 8:52:37 pm

Yes, that is exactly what people have trouble with. Managing a function that should not need managing. Avid has had a magnetic timeline practically since its inception. But I can turn it on and off. Accepting as a given that many people absolutely love the way FCPX works, I do have to ask how hard it would be for Apple to make it work for the rest of us? If they were really committed to the leading the NLE market this would not even be an issue. What they appear to be committed to is not admitting they were wrong.

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:23:17 pm

[TImothy Auld] " Accepting as a given that many people absolutely love the way PrCC works, I do have to ask how hard it would be for Adobe to make it work for the rest of us? If they were really committed to leading the NLE market this would not even be an issue. What they appear to be committed to is not admitting they were wrong."

fixed it for ya

Sorry, couldn't resist. My guess is that Apple is committed to improving the NLE that they have, not turning it into something it isn't. They make changes based on volume of feedback, but tracks in the literal sense aren't coming to X. You can approximate the function of tracks with secondary story lines, but it's a ridiculous kludge to put everything in secondaries. Particularly since there's absolutely no reason to. I don't mean this to sound mean spirited, but if you're workflow really requires tracks there are other NLE's which are very good.

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:33:01 pm

So everyone in the FCPX world is happy then?

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:37:46 pm

[TImothy Auld] "So everyone in the FCPX world is happy then?
"


Of course not, There's a laundry list of things that need to be implemented, fixed and/improved. I'm specifically addressing the topic (believe it or not lol) that audio editing in X, and by extension the whole magnetic timeline is somehow sub-par because of the lack of fixed tracks. It isn't.

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:39:11 pm

Apple is committed to preserving its brand. If you think they (or any other corporation) is doing otherwise then you are deluded beyond derangement.

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:42:42 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:43:21 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Apple is committed to preserving its brand. If you think they (or any other corporation) is doing otherwise then you are deluded beyond derangement."

Of course they are. Again, I'm specifically speaking about FCP X. The people at Apple working on FCP X are committed to improving it. Now, if Apple decides to stop making computers and software and concentrate on phones then so be it. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:50:34 pm

So where, in the past two plus years are the improvements? Beyond those who have drunk the Kool-Aid?

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:57:32 pm

[TImothy Auld] "So where, in the past two plus years are the improvements? Beyond those who have drunk the Kool-Aid?"

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4589?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

Start at 10.0.4 or 5, that should be about 2 years.

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 10:05:13 pm

Sorry, but no. Nothing here adressses the many people left behind by FCPX. Apple has only made improvements based on the input of people they choose to accept. If you have ANY evidence to the contrary i'd love to see it.

Tim


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 10:11:54 pm

It's like asking the iPhone team why they don't put a hardware keyboard on it.

FCPX is going into a direction. It needs refinement. But it doesn't need to be changed into something it isn't.

You can ask the iPhone team to make a better software keyboard. To have extra features for their touch-keyboard. Asking for a hardware keyboard like all Blackberry's had, is a wasted effort.
(and when Apple announced the iPhone, a lot of people kept asking for a 'real' keyboard also).


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 10:23:26 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Sorry, but no. Nothing here adressses the many people left behind by FCPX. Apple has only made improvements based on the input of people they choose to accept. If you have ANY evidence to the contrary i'd love to see it."

Sorry, that's ridiculous. Outside of a few specific workflows, the people "left behind" by FCP X have chosen that status. PIOP's and the Library were specific things that were added in response to complaints. I'm sure there are more. Honestly, even if FCP X were perfect, anyone who has some sort of quasi-religious belief that it sucks will never like it. And I say that as someone who, at one point, did. The only reason I'm back up to speed with MC and Pr is because of that. And I'm glad I am, it adds perspective. But then I gave X another chance and discovered that Kool-Aide is actually pretty good. :-)

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 10:31:30 pm

I have not "chosen that status" as you say. I have tried, earnestly, to make this work for me. How dare you try to marginalize me?

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 10:36:28 pm

[TImothy Auld] "I have not "chosen that status" as you say. I have tried, earnestly, to make this work for me. How dare you try to marginalize me?"


I wasn't specifically referring to you Tim, and I apologize if it came across that way. Seriously.

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 10:46:41 pm

I appreciate the apology but it does not even begin to address the points i've been trying to make.

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 10:54:08 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jun 4, 2014 at 11:06:10 pm

[TImothy Auld] "I appreciate the apology but it does not even begin to address the points i've been trying to make.
"


It was sincere. I'm sure it's probably been hashed over before, but what exactly doesn't work for you in FCP X?

On a side note... I am about to force quit FCP 7 due to a never ending beach ball of doom. I wonder when I last saved? Say what you will about X, but I've only once lost more than the last edit I made, and usually not even that, on the (rare) occasions it's crashed...

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 11:20:48 pm
Last Edited By TImothy Auld on Jun 4, 2014 at 11:27:33 pm

I know you were sincere and I appreciate it. The whys and what nots that don't work for me have been addressed ad infinitum in these forums and I don't feel I have to explain what problems I (and many others) have with in FCPX. It's been done over and over again. What I want to know is why Apple chose to blow off so many loyal users? And believe me I know they are making money hand over fist with this. But where does the "do no harm" rubric come in? They have certainly done undoable harm to those who invested in them from the beginning of the last century. What, exactly, does "do no harm" mean?

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 12:18:50 am

[TImothy Auld] "The whys and what nots that don't work for me have been addressed ad infinitum in these forums and I don't feel I have to explain what problems I (and many others) have problems with in FCPX. It's been done over and over again."

Fair enough. :-)

[TImothy Auld] "What I want to know is why Apple chose to blow off so many loyal users? And believe me I know they are making money hand over fist with this. But where does the "do no harm" rubric come in? They have certainly done undoable harm to those who invested in them from the beginning of the last century. What, exactly, does "do no harm" mean?"

I don't think they "chose" to blow anybody off. The launch of X was... not done well, but I really think they believe in X. Despite all the indirect insults that get hurled their way on the internets, they keep improving it 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 12:26:54 am

From my perspective they clearly chose. Like all reasonable folks who don't understand other reasonable folks I do not understand from whence you come. And I guess that's it.

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 12:37:57 am

[TImothy Auld] "From my perspective they clearly chose. Like all reasonable folks who don't understand other reasonable folks I do not understand from whence you come. And I guess that's it."

Well, OK... In the same way they chose to kill floppy disks, or the old Mac OS, sure. They thought "this is better" and went with it. I come from uh, whence I um... came? I honestly think they were right (and I really didn't initially), but I can totally understand how you don't. I guess I just don't think it was a malicious thing, it's just what Apple does from time to time. :-) They break stuff and start over.

Having said all that, in relation to this particular thread, Audio editing in X is definitely not broken. It's just different. And I didn't need to drink any Kool-aide to say that ;-)

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

~ 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

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 11:15:18 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Start at 10.0.4 or 5, that should be about 2 years."

When I look at the history of FCPX upgrades I notice two things -

That Apple met the deadlines they gave themselves in the "white paper" they put out that first summer, listing all the features they promised they were putting back after the cries of anguish which greeted the original roll-out.

And that there hasn't been many big changes that weren't on that white paper. PIOPs and the change to the Library structure are the only ones I am aware of. I understand that changing the data base structure to accomplish the later is a major task, still, to an outsider it seems the pace of upgrades have slowed considerably.

Take the idea of expanding the potential of roles - this has been asked for and discussed for well over 2 years, but as far as I can tell Apple hasn't changed a thing there. Or bringing back "send to motion," another often requested feature by X users that still hasn't made an appearance yet.

Does this concern you at all?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 11:26:45 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Take the idea of expanding the potential of roles - this has been asked for and discussed for well over 2 years, but as far as I can tell Apple hasn't changed a thing there. Or bringing back "send to motion," another often requested feature by X users that still hasn't made an appearance yet.

Does this concern you at all?"


On some level, sure. And I do think Apple could do a better job communicating with customers. But I have had occasional email exchanges with some of the people on the Pro Apps team (following up on feedback form info and annoying emails etc), and I'm pretty sure it's not because they're sitting on their hands. I could be wrong I guess...

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

~ 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: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 12:07:16 am

[Herb Sevush] "... the pace of upgrades have slowed considerably."

Herb,

Previously:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/68712

Franz.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 7:46:36 am
Last Edited By Mathieu Ghekiere on Jun 5, 2014 at 9:43:14 am

Hi Herb,

In my opinion 10.0.6 was a huge update. An update after which a lot of people used it professionaly.
We had multiple PIOP, An R3D workflow that is arguably the best of any NLE because of speed and a Built-in proxy workflow, and copy and paste attributes (long overdue, but the new version is - again - better than what we had in 7), audio components (also huge, can't remember that being in the white paper).
Those were the bigger features, there were of course a host of smaller ones that really made the program better.

That being said, I agree that it SEEMS that the pace of development has slowed a bit and I would Like it if Apple would release another road map and put out another juicy feature update.


BTW a great tutorial on audio components by Sam Mestman for Anyone that's interested:







At the end, Sam says there are no fade handles on individual audio components. This was added in 10.1.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on May 31, 2014 at 7:47:11 pm

[Bob Woodhead] " find that grabbing them by the balls is the easiest way to wrestle 'em to the ground. "

Unless, of course, you are a mythical beaver and bite them off and leave them for your pursuer.

http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast152.htm


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 1, 2014 at 3:09:11 am

"Unless, of course, you are a mythical beaver and bite them off and leave them for your pursuer."

Mythical Beaver is, in my opinion, the next great alternative folk rock band name.

Mark my words.

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

Eric Santiago
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 1:16:38 pm

I just had the (dis)pleasure of fixing a short in FCPX exported from FCP7 using 7 to X.
The editor was eyeballing the video to the external audio in FCP7.
I know.. "cringe" but it happens, thats what Im for...the FIXER :P
Anyways, I found FCPX to be a joy to work with as far as audio.
I had to redo my workflow to fit the editors mistake and I didnt mind,the challenge was worth it.
Using the Open in Timeline helped a lot.
Now of course I should have just synced the the EX3s to the recorded audio right?
Well that didnt quite work out due to the deadline I was given.
First off finding the clip (no labels to match audio) take and then finding the audio was hell.
Were talking 250 plus clips (Cam A/B) and 125 (some missing) audio.
Off the 10 attempts I made at sync, only 3 matched.
I didnt have the brain-space to deal with this at the time.
Okay I went to much into my hell over the week-end.
Anyways, I love FCPX audio tools.
For what I do, it really did save my ass.
I will make notes of my audio adventure and post my own topic soon.


Return to posts index

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 3:46:59 pm

I have been intensively editing a long-form doc in X now for a few months, and while I like some things about editing dialog & audio, others seem strange and non-sensical.

I like the speed and fluidity of chopping up dialog & rearranging it in the main storyline. However, when i want to do something really simple to the audio of a video clip WITHOUT detaching it, like cut a piece of room tone in over an off-camera cough or interviewer voice, it is not obvious how to do such a simple thing... Sometimes i turn the clip into a compound clip and do the editing there, but I don't like going away to a different project timeline to do that... my main "project" takes a while to come back... other times i have detached the audio and fiddled with it in a secondary storyline, but i don't like doing that... so i have found workarounds but none of them seem intuitive and natural as they would in an NLE environment where all tracks have the same properties... yes, there it is, the "T" word... honestly I really do miss tracks sometimes. And I really miss tracks when i create a secondary storyline and think it will behave just like the primary storyline, and therefore be sort of like a new "track"... the inconsistency between how secondary story lines and the primary operate seems a bit strange to me... like i wish i could copy & paste inside that secondary storyline, but nope. X is a strange beast.



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 5:28:54 pm

[Joshua Pearson] "like cut a piece of room tone in over an off-camera cough or interviewer voice"

What about just range the section with the cough and drop that level down and then attach your room tone below that (as a connected clip) with a little adjustments with the audio fade handles? I love those fade handles.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 5:55:17 pm

Ooops Tony beat me to it :)


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 5:53:25 pm

[Joshua Pearson] "However, when i want to do something really simple to the audio of a video clip WITHOUT detaching it, like cut a piece of room tone in over an off-camera cough or interviewer voice, it is not obvious how to do such a simple thing..."

Have you tried copying a portion and pasting as Connected?
Ive done this both ways where I pasted as Connected in Project and within the clip itself using "Open in Timeline" option.


Return to posts index

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 6:10:58 pm

yes i've done all that... it just bugs me that these little tiny clips will be dangling off my storyline... i want the little tiny clip to be safely embedded into the main audio clip!...



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 6:36:49 pm

[Joshua Pearson] "i want the little tiny clip to be safely embedded into the main audio clip!.."

Why?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 7:15:48 pm

Relative to nothing...

Somebody once told me that in order to feel "comfortable" in any new environment - it takes a human brain between 90 and 120 days to acclimate.

I've stopped trying to "fix" people's perceptions of X if they're still inside that vague 120 day window. And its almost worse for a user who's getting "contaminated" by going back and forth - reinforcing their Legacy expectations day after day - while simultaneously attempting to adapt to the new expectations.

The X way of things absolutely does feel foreign and troubling to anyone who hasn't become accustomed to it. And the moment one DOES become accustomed to it - then (like MAGIC) it's no longer an issue.

Remember magnetism in the early days of X? 90 days of yelling and screaming. And after a while, nobody actually using it thinks munch about it any more. It's just the way things are.

And so it goes.

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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:21:20 pm

You have not stopped.

Tim


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:54:40 pm
Last Edited By TImothy Auld on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:57:32 pm

I never felt it foreign or troubling to me. Just inadequate to my needs in certain situations. Is that beyond your comprehension?

Tim


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 7:02:48 pm

"i want the little tiny clip to be safely embedded into the main audio clip"
But doesn't the "open in timeline" option achieve just that?
I find audio editing more elegant in x than in legacy.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:46:55 pm

I don't want ANY audio clip embedded in ANYTHING.

Tim


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:49:56 am

yes at that - i just found and read that exchange above about copying and pasting audio back onto the VA clip as a connected clip and then ideally maybe embedding that connected audio into the main audio about the funniest/insane thing I've read on here in a long time.

It's a seriously rich blend of kool aid and stockhom syndrome, all polished off with that one dude going: - mmmm - "I find audio editing more elegant in x"

sometimes - just sometimes - the exchanges between x proponents on here do actually boggle the mind.
It's just the way they're all happily doing these completely insane things, and thinking its all breezy.

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


Return to posts index

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 3:04:02 pm

I agree with you Andreas... i was trying to say i want to simply "cut a piece of room tone directly into the audio of an interview clip, thereby in effect "embedding it", directly in my main timeline, without clicking into another timeline, or opening as timeline, or making a compound clip, or "detaching' the audio. A more complicated way of saying, i want to alter the audio "track" as if it lived in a "track", which in the main storyline it doesn't, unless you of course "detach" it... My way of saying, the functionality of the main storyline is strange and requires odd workarounds compared to treating all "tracks" or "layers" or "lanes" as equals. Thats what i want! Equality for all clips!... X unfortunately forces a hierarchy. And to make it slightly more annoying, secondary story lines do not behave like the main story lines, which i wish they would. Thats all.

Otherwise I do really enjoy keywording and much of the organizational side of X. And straight cutting into the main storyline is great... its just the fiddling that gets slightly weird.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 3:32:34 pm

[Joshua Pearson] "Otherwise I do really enjoy keywording and much of the organizational side of X. "

it's the best bit - it makes everything else look stone age. I feel cooler just using it.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 3:33:45 pm

Thinking like "tracks" isn't going to move Apple towards a solution.

A feature request allowing "overwrite" in both audio components and connected clips might make more sense.



Return to posts index

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 4:06:10 pm

yes that's what i'm talking about... overwrite edit into just the audio or just the video portion of clips in the main storyline. And please let me paste insert and paste overwrite a clip in a secondary storyline.



Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 5:36:31 pm

Yes, I second the feature request allowing overwrite in both audio components and connected clips and also paste overwriting in a secondary storyline. But, really, was audio editing better in Legacy?

Personally, I just select all clips and EXPAND AUDIO COMPONENTS (I do not expand audio/video, or detach audio, or use compound clips, secondary storylines, open clips in the timeline, etc). On the expanded audio tracks the cursor automatically turns into the range tool, so with one single drag I can select any piece of audio, then mute it or adjust its volume, copy and paste it elsewhere, etc. All very efficient, IMHO.

Aindreas, I mentioned "opening in timeline" just because Joshua wanted "the little tiny clip to be safely embedded into the main audio clip". It can very quickly be done, although I wouldn't quite want to work that way either. I have no problem with those balls, eh, clips hanging there.

One thing I find more elegant in X is the way in which audio is connected to the video. In legacy the video and its audio often end up being vertically quite far apart, sometimes with stuff in between so it's not obvious what belongs to what. In X you can also collapse audio components after editing audio, which greatly cleans things up visually on the timeline. Also the way one can reshuffle clips with J/L-cuts without these causing conflicts or the cuts being affected I would call more elegant. And proper subframe editing and the little handles to fade clips in/out are clear timesavers.

Of course the whole elegance breaks down as soon as you add some music and sounds and the audio clips end up getting thrown randomly all over the place in a sea of green, but, well, that's another story...


Return to posts index

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 6:08:46 pm

huh, see, i learned something new!... never tried the "expand audio components"... i see how i can mute things but i just tried to copy and paste a small range of room tone, and, even though i select a range of audio only, when i copy and try to paste that audio, it doesn't overwrite only, it cuts audio AND video into the timeline... still in "expanded" view... so i can't use it for my previously stated simple room-tone cut.



Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 6:38:15 pm

cool. you have to paste as connected clip, then it pastes audio only. figure out! think different i guess. still no overwrite though, so you have to mute the portion over it, which is a needless step i hope apple will get rid of.
the way you can select a range and use keystrokes to increase or decrease the volume or mute the range is quite efficient though.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:19:29 pm

I think one of the logistical challenges in FCPX is that Audio as a Component vs Connected Clip vs Secondary Storyline, each involve different techniques to achieve a specific function, in this case inserting room time.

The problem is, if you could "overwrite" to an Audio Component, that might be creating another level of complexity as it's not longer the audio as recorded as a component of the source file.

In some sense this makes Audio in FCPX very much "modal." I think the quandary comes in, for the editor, is that changing a component to another "mode" (connected clip or secondary story line) each comes with the loss of some of the advantages of being an Audio Component. One example would be components can't lose sync whereas detached clips can.

If you're looking at why one has a reluctance to change the "mode" of the component then that could be the kernel of a feature request.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 6:53:43 pm

[Atilio Menéndez] "Of course the whole elegance breaks down as soon as you add some music and sounds and the audio clips end up getting thrown randomly all over the place in a sea of green, but, well, that's another story."

No, that is the story, unless you don't use music or sound EFX.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:05:05 pm

[Herb Sevush] "No, that is the story, unless you don't use music or sound EFX."

That's how I've made my audio editing in FCP X much easier, I've stopped using music and EFX

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:14:15 pm

Yes i do not like the chaotic placement of clips in the timeline "space"... my timelines get very complex and i do like a visual sense of order when zoomed out to look at the whole shebang.

But i am not here to dump on X... i am simply trying to figure out how to do certain things more easily, mixed with some mild complaining. Like I said there are things about it like a lot.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:40:28 pm

[Steve Connor] "That's how I've made my audio editing in FCP X much easier, I've stopped using music and EFX"

ahh, so that's your secret. brilliant! and the way you make video editing easier is by not using any video. awesome! now i'm finally "getting" fcpx. I'm sure Bill will be very proud.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:13:02 pm

for sure - there are millions of brilliant things - and I don't use it enough to talk as the world and its cat knows - but for all the brilliant things, there are some bananas things - like not being able to do an audio only overwrite - that just actually is bananas.

and the reason you can't do it is because of the restrictive decisions apple took in the design of the timeline. They decided it was A-OK to have an outcome where the editor couldn't do an audio only overwrite - that feels like a crazy decision - I'd argue if there was an editor within a half mile of them when they were working that out he would have been all 'excuse me what now? we really like to do that you know."

so now you're left muting bits of clip audio and connecting the replacement room tone below - and, you know, that just sounds outright bonkers?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:32:32 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " there are some bananas things - like not being able to do an audio only overwrite - that just actually is bananas."

Except that you can do an audio only overwrite, just like any other NLE. Ya know, with detached audio. Now, unlike any other NLE the sync audio rides with the pix, so if you need to write audio over the sync audio for doe reason, then you detach it with a keystroke so you can work just like you're used to working. And then, if you want it to go back to being self contained, press a key to comp it. Real complicated.

Oh no wait, I forgot... it's really difficult and i'm drinking koolaid.

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

~ 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

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:44:02 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Except that you can do an audio only overwrite, just like any other NLE. Ya know, with detached audio. "

Just a question by a non-user who always works with detached audio: when you work with detached audio does FCPX provide sync indicators so you can easily maintain sync, just like any other NLE?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:50:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Just a question by a non-user who always works with detached audio: when you work with detached audio does FCPX provide sync indicators so you can easily maintain sync, just like any other NLE?"

Nope. Because it doesn't go out of sync unless you move it out of sync. If need to be reassured it will never go out of sync don't disconnect it, or comp it to the pix. But you knew that 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

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:01:20 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Nope. Because it doesn't go out of sync unless you move it out of sync. If need to be reassured it will never go out of sync don't disconnect it, or comp it to the pix."

So your argument is that if you want to do an audio only overwrite, just disconnect the audio. But if your worried about the audio ever going out of sync, don't disconnect the audio. So what if you want to do audio only overwrites (something every editor does routinely) and you worry about audio inadvertently going out of sync (something every sane editor does.)? Use another NLE, I guess.

For someone like myself who always edits using disconnected media, advising someone to work in a timeline without sync indicators is like advising someone with a sore throat to gargle with nitro glycerin. Unless you've got something better to offer, then Aindreas's comments on this issue are still valid.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:10:17 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So what if you want to do audio only overwrites (something every editor does routinely) and you worry about audio inadvertently going out of sync (something every sane editor does.)?"

Are you implying I'm insane? :-) I'm not arguing anything. I worry about things going out of sync as much as anyone. In X, I just make sure the connections are in the right place and forget about it. It's second nature now. Like many people here, I've been editing in NLE's with sync indicators for close to 25 years. My timelines are often very complex. I thought not having sync indicators was an issue when I first picked up X. Now I don't, because it isn't. would it be a nice option for those who are used to using them? Sure.

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

~ 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

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:18:48 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Are you implying I'm insane? :-) I'm not arguing anything. I worry about things going out of sync as much as anyone. In X, I just make sure the connections are in the right place and forget about it. It's second nature now. Like many people here, I've been editing in NLE's with sync indicators for close to 25 years. My timelines are often very complex. I thought not having sync indicators was an issue when I first picked up X. Now I don't, because it isn't. would it be a nice option for those who are used to using them? Sure.
"


Sorry Charlie, that's too much like an informed opinion, it can't possibly be correct

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:41:53 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I worry about things going out of sync as much as anyone. In X, I just make sure the connections are in the right place and forget about it. "

OK, that sounds reasonable. So first you disconnect it, then you make sure the connections are in the right place to keep it in sync, then what if you want to move it out of sync for some reason - disconnect it again I guess -- then what if later you want to have part of that clip back in sync with video again ??

I'm not being facetious here, I go through this workflow dozens of times a week, audio being in sync, then covering it with B-roll, then changing later to having some of it still be in sync to video as I break up the B-roll as I refine the edit, and all of this with the ability to do audio only overwrites at any point - the idea of doing that without sync indicators "seems" insane, but then again I'm willing to learn a better way, I'm just not willing to learn a purely different way without it being a better way.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:27:53 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So first you disconnect it, then you make sure the connections are in the right place to keep it in sync"

Not exactly... I cut everything in with sync audio. Generally my sources have split tracks, to which I've assigned Roles after importing. So, even if I only need Dialog, I'll cut it in with DIA and FX and disable what I don't need. If I change my mind, I just turn it back on, no need to match bach and cut in the "tracks" I now need. Then, while cutting, I expand the AV so I can do J/L cuts if I need to, but audio stays connected.

[Herb Sevush] "then what if you want to move it out of sync for some reason - disconnect it"
In that case, I will disconnect it, and make sure the connection point is on the clip I want it to stick to. If I need to cheat some audio or something, and parts of the cut aren't directly below the clip I want to maintain sync with, I'll comp it and connect the comp in the right place. 2 keystrokes.

[Herb Sevush] "then what if later you want to have part of that clip back in sync with video again "

There are a couple ways to do this... Jeremy points out one way which is actually a pretty nice feature. Personally, I'd just match back to the pix and overcut it. Same as if you replaced sync pix with B-Roll in FC 7 and then wanted to get the sync pix back

[Herb Sevush] "audio being in sync, then covering it with B-roll, then changing later to having some of it still be in sync to video as I break up the B-roll as I refine the edit, and all of this with the ability to do audio only overwrites at any poin"

same here... I cut everything in, usually roughly as connected, expanded clips then dump to the primary. I cut the B-Roll as connected clips (sometime leaving the sync audio with it, just disabled in case I decide i need it) and get that all roughed out. Fine tune J/L cuts in the primary with expanded audio, do any audio only cuts as connected clips and mute or disable sync audio as needed. If I cheat dialog I'll either comp it as audio only or with the pix. If the audio part of the cheat extends beyond the video I'll expand A/V, trim the video portion to length (leaving J/L audio) and close it up. If I decide some b-roll doesn't work i just delete it and re-enable the original audio. Or enable the B-Roll audio and disable the primary. I pop clips/sections in and out of the primary all the time. Sometimes I'll assemble B-Roll sections in secondaries so I can add transitions etc, and then dump the whole thing into the primary as a chunk if I want to. Or not. It's super flexible once you get into it.

And honestly, I really don't worry about losing sync. And again, as Jeremy says, you could cut *all* your audio with the picture attached so it's always be there. It's a really nice way to work. I say that as I sit here cutting in FCP 7 this week. It's really frustrating. :-)

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

~ 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

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:51:27 pm

I don't doubt that you find this a great way to do your work, but for an "outsider" here's the thing - you've just mentioned connected clips, primaries, expanded clips, comps and secondaries - all to describe something that in any other NLE is done without any of them. I'll take your word for it that it's fast and efficient, but if it takes that long just to describe it, I'll stick to clips and tracks.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:59:02 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't doubt that you find this a great way to do your work, but for an "outsider" here's the thing - you've just mentioned connected clips, primaries, expanded clips, comps and secondaries - all to describe something that in any other NLE is done without any of them. I'll take your word for it that it's fast and efficient, but if it takes that long just to describe it, I'll stick to clips and tracks."

Well, FWIW, try describing how to cut in FCP 7 or Pr or MC to someone who doesn't understand how it works and you'd probably get the same reaction. In practice it's really easy. I understand it sounds convoluted. It's not. As I said, I'm cutting in 7 today (or I should be lol) and it's way more complicated.

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

~ 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

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:57:24 pm

No it does not which is a huge flaw... i've work with sync OFF for my entire editing career (well, not in the days of u-matic tape editing) and never had a problem, especially with the help of the sync indicators... but without them i am loath to detach audio... not to mention that, as someone mentioned earlier how in 7 audio clips can get far away "down the tracks as you stack video clips... its the same in X when you detach audio!... if there are 5 layers of audio below your video clip, when you detach the audio it drops down as if pulled by gravity to the bottom... seems to me it would be more convenient if when you detach audio from a clip in the storyline it should "hug" the storyline and remain just under the original clip... i find myself scrolling down to find the clip and pull it back up so it sits under the timeline...



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:29:48 pm

[Joshua Pearson] "but without them i am loath to detach audio.."

So don't detach audio, instead use the audio with the video, but keep it underneath the primary.

Shift-f to match frame, q to add as connected, drag it underneath the primary and use it as an audio clip.

This way you a have synced audio and video to whatever clip you are working on.

You don't need sync markers as everything is in sync with itself if you need it.

You can always change the stacking order to prioritize what video is available, or use a composite mode to send a layer to the back.

Could this process be better? Sure, but X does work if you work it, and it doesn't work like track based editors. Perhaps I'm insane, I don't really care. I've stopped worrying about it.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:58:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Shift-f to match frame, q to add as connected, drag it underneath the primary and use it as an audio clip."

As opposed to doing an audio overwrite edit in any other nle. yes, i can see how that's a great leap forward.

nobody said there weren't workarounds, just that for something this basic you shouldn't need a workaround.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:28:08 pm

I haven't gone in for this in a long time, and I do apparently hate, with little skill, every other editing system bar legend,

but of all of them X is the only one where X proponents can sit there mashing nails, muffins and pipe fittings together, hold the lump up and go - see? it works a treat, you just have to get your head around it.


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:37:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but of all of them X is the only one where X proponents can sit there mashing nails, muffins and pipe fittings together, hold the lump up and go - see? it works a treat, you just have to get your head around it.
"


Is there really ANY chance you could NOT keep ridiculing the people that use FCP X and try confining your lyrical hatred to the software itself.

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 12:03:29 am

[Herb Sevush] "As opposed to doing an audio overwrite edit in any other nle. yes, i can see how that's a great leap forward.

nobody said there weren't workarounds, just that for something this basic you shouldn't need a workaround."


You see it is a workaround, I see it as how it works.

We will never agree.

You are adding an audio clip to the timeline, I am adding a audio + video (or just audio) clip to the timeline. Really, it's kind of the same, but we won't agree on that either.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:32:03 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "We will never agree."

Oh don't be so downhearted. We might agree. Sometime. On something. Once or twice even.

[Jeremy Garchow] "You are adding an audio clip to the timeline, I am adding a audio + video (or just audio) clip to the timeline. "

I'm doing an insert edit. One of the most basic elements of editing, the name comes from the on-line linear days it's so old and basic. Any NLE can do it, including X from what I understand. I'm betting that if I looked in the X PDF manual "insert edit" will be listed as a feature.

You are having to create a match, then do an edit, then move something under the primary, if I get your description right. I'm sure it's very quick when you get used to it, but it's not basic to X, it's not a single keystroke sort of thing, there's no shortcut key for it, I doubt that it is even described in the PDF manual. It is the very definition of a "work-around."

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:09:34 pm

Is this useful? http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.1/#ver4e2fcf0


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:47:01 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Except that you can do an audio only overwrite, just like any other NLE. Ya know, with detached audio."

bzzzt - wrong answer. having to cut the audio of the VA clip completely loose to an unrelated item and losing all sync info is, tragically, a non-starter.

so if you need to write audio over the sync audio for doe reason, then you detach it with a keystroke so you can work just like you're used to working. And then, if you want it to go back to being self contained, press a key to comp it. Real complicated.

so right - you're now making effectively a nested sequence to try and regain sync. mmm. that all sounds aces charlie. completely on the ball methodology there.

and see - he said turning to the room of impartial observers in ranged tiered seating looking at the X proponent swinging his arms wildly -

that actually is koolaid territory.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:12:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so right - you're now making effectively a nested sequence to try and regain sync. mmm. that all sounds aces charlie. completely on the ball methodology there.

and see - he said turning to the room of impartial observers in ranged tiered seating looking at the X proponent swinging his arms wildly -

that actually is koolaid territory."


I've missed the Kool-Aid references, I'm glad they're back.

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:28:37 pm

fair enough I overdid but listen to this - this below is a solution right? that a casual editor might read? enter mr. garchow:

So don't detach audio, instead use the audio with the video, but keep it underneath the primary. Shift-f to match frame, q to add as connected, drag it underneath the primary and use it as an audio clip. This way you a have synced audio and video to whatever clip you are working on. You don't need sync markers as everything is in sync with itself if you need it. You can always change the stacking order to prioritize what video is available, or use a composite mode to send a layer to the back.


when I say that sounds crazy, its because I mean that sounds crazy, the fact that composite modes got thrown in for fun there at the end leads me to suspect that garchow is possibly slightly in on the joke here.

Some of FCPX is crazy, wild attempts to ignore the crazy might be characterised as having imbibed a cup of the kool aid. If there was one place to constructively prod apple - this is definitely one of them. PIOPS people. you'd have to think they were still reading this place back then. Although garchow hasn't forgiven anyone for piops yet.

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


Return to posts index

Joshua Pearson
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:41:25 pm

Sorry, while i'm still beating my drum about overwrite editing, it does also seem really strange that you can't overwrite paste into the main storyline. I mean, come on...



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:12:26 pm

you can do that tho - the issue is with secondaries no? or do you mean a paste action as opposed to an overwrite?

edit - i just booted it up - actually why in the sweet hell can't I set in out points on a connected clip above the primary? Is that actually the way things are?

io keyboard selection still only exists on the primary? I even got that stupid dot onto the connected clip? I set io and I just watch it select the primary every time. I wanted to declare an edit in out range, not V1 clip range select. oh good sweet christ the stupid. man this thing.

I don't use it enough but my. god. almighty.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:37:43 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "io keyboard selection still only exists on the primary? I even got that stupid dot onto the connected clip? I set io and I just watch it select the primary every time."

No, it did just what you wanted it to. What you to do? The I/O range, like any NLE, effects the entire timeline. Your edit will effect whatever you target. Primary, secondary, or connected. FCP 7 puts the I/O range in the time ruler, do you feel that's stupid? I mean, I don't want to cut something into the ruler, why is it putting marks there?!? :-)

Jesus, come to LA, I could show you all this stuff in about 5 minutes. It makes perfect sense unless you're trying to have it act like something it's not....

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:07:52 pm

[Charlie Austin] "The I/O range, like any NLE, effects the entire timeline. Your edit will effect whatever you target."

that's actually not true. someone help me out here. i can overwrite to the primary, and the in out selection visible on the primary can be used to create a connected clip with those in out marks. but who cares - it looks stupid the minute the software declares the selection IO as live on the primary and then allows the action to take place with a new connected clip insert command. mind you -what about the connected clip that was already there over the primary that I wanted to overwrite. no you fool, I can't use the IO marks on that - it's not the bloody primary.

god the mad stupid.

apple only knows how to present the IO selection on the primary, because its the primary, apple don't know how to make an audio overwrite, because they made VA lozenges that don't allow it. apple knows a set of preset things they have burned into the timeline.

the issue is with the lack of space outside the declared dunces prize primary. that there is no real extant timeline.

(sorry bud - old hits charlie :)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:37:17 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "i can overwrite to the primary, and the in out selection visible on the primary can be used to create a connected clip with those in out marks. but who cares - it looks stupid the minute the software declares the selection IO as live on the primary and then allows the action to take place with a new connected clip insert command. mind you -what about the connected clip that was already there over the primary that I wanted to overwrite. no you fool, I can't use the IO marks on that - it's not the bloody primary"

I don't know why I bother, but if you want to "overwrite" a connected clip, just mark a source I or O and replace it. if you want the clips over the primary to act like a track that you can happily overwrite then put 'em in a secondary. Again... It's really really easy. Unless you insist on thinking in terms of tracks. But as there are no tracks, trying to make sense of it in those terms is a fools errand.

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 12:10:39 am

[Charlie Austin] "But as there are no tracks, trying to make sense of it in those terms is a fools errand."

that is incredibly true Charlie, and there is almost no answer left.

You guys really are where you are. Run with that baby. Run Charlie run :)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 12:21:55 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "You guys really are where you are. Run with that baby. Run Charlie run :)
"


I'm not sure what you mean, but sure, whatever you say... But I'm telling ya Aindreas, despite your entrenched disdain for the X timeline, if you ever get to LA, I'd be happy to show you how it works. I felt just you you do at one point. I was wrong. It's easy.

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 12:40:31 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jun 4, 2014 at 12:51:55 am

[Charlie Austin] "I'm not sure what you mean, "

no worries - sure just enjoy the thing :)

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 5:39:19 am

I still think there must be some confusion on the terms. Maybe some pictures would help.



This is what expand audio components looks like.





This is what detach audio looks like (I almost never use this)




And this is break apart clip items. This looks just like most NLEs that have tracks. anybody could just work in this mode if they wanted. It's not gonna come out of sync even if I pick up that video clip and drag it down the timeline. That audio will go right with it.


Now, the guy wanted to cover a cough with room tone. You could just cut that right in there in this mode. I still would do it the first way I described, because if you just cut some room tone in it may sound cut in, but that's just me.




Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 12:38:23 pm
Last Edited By Atilio Menéndez on Jun 4, 2014 at 1:18:16 pm

That does indeed look like most NLE's with tracks, but it's quite different!

1. Overwriting part of a connected clip or overwriting audio. Whether you expand audio components, detach audio or break apart clip components - it all makes no difference. There is no way to IN ONE STEP overwrite a part of an connected clip, be it audio or video, or to overwrite just the audio of a clip. It's always a TWO STEP process where you have to remove or mute the part to be replaced and attach the new one. It's perhaps not terrible, but it's such a basic procedure that it really should be improved, IMHO. Still, I personally like not being able to overwrite audio in one step or dealing with potentially disorganized audio clips way better than playing Track Tetris.

2. Keeping sync. If you care about the audio and video of a clip staying in sync, then it's better to NOT detach audio or break apart clip components. A reason why there are no out-of-sync markers is that if you detach or break apart (which are virtually the same) the program assumes that you do not care about sync, since these functions are intended precisely to move the audio independently from the video. Now, by design everything still does stay in sync, you drag the video around and the audio follows, but in practice you can inadvertently bump things out out sync - a small slip of the mouse on a connected clip is all it takes! If you care about sync, it's better to do the editing using the expanded audio components, which is precisely why they are there in the first place. That being said, I still think there should be a quick way to lock connected clips in place, but it's really not a big deal if you don't detach everything.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 2:46:25 pm

[Atilio Menéndez] "There is no way to IN ONE STEP overwrite "

That was not the argument, if you could do it in ONE STEP or not. Folks were saying you couldn't do it at all.
I showed how you could.

There are some things in X that might take more key strokes but there more that take less for the tasks that I use most often. I will take being able to quickly swap whole sections around myself.


[Atilio Menéndez] "If you care about the audio and video of a clip staying in sync, then it's better to NOT detach audio or break apart clip components. "

I never have a problem with things coming out of sync in X

I don't need sync markers to tell if something is out of sync. I could tell by looking at it. It just never happens to me anyway, maybe I just have the program down in that sense.

It's kind of odd to me to complain about sync in X and not complain about sync in other NLEs when You really have to work hard in X to put anything out of sync.

I just don't see people on here complaining that they keep putting things out of sync.


[Atilio Menéndez] "detach or break apart (which are virtually the same)"

They are not the same, one lays out all the channels of audio and one doesn't. I was hoping the pictures would help show the differences.


[Atilio Menéndez] "I still think there should be a quick way to lock connected clips in place, but it's really not a big deal if you don't detach everything."

It's not a big deal for me if I break things apart anyway.


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:41:01 pm
Last Edited By Atilio Menéndez on Jun 4, 2014 at 4:22:14 pm

[tony west] "That was not the argument, if you could do it in ONE STEP or not."

That IS the argument! The argument is about the effectiveness with which you can edit audio in X. Nobody ever claimed that you couldn't replace a piece of audio with another. The argument is about how direct that process is, whether it involves work-arounds, etc.

[tony west] "detach or break apart... one lays out all the channels of audio and one doesn't"

That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that with both the audio can then be moved independently from the video and thus be bumped out of sync, unlike expanding audio components.

[tony west] "I don't need sync markers to tell if something is out of sync. I could tell by looking at it."

Aw, man, you must be kidding, right? The whole idea of a sync marker is that it allows you to tell what's not in sync WITHOUT having to play back the footage! And to help you put it back in sync. Now, if you say that "sync markers are not necessary in X" that's something else. Then I would agree, in legacy they were necessary, not in X. Still, there are situations when I would like to have them.

[tony west] "It's not a big deal for me if I break things apart anyway."

Unless you have to collaborate with someone who is not as careful as you are.

When I read such comments or "That's how I've made my audio editing in FCP X much easier, I've stopped using music and EFX" all I know is that I sure hope nobody at Apple is reading this.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:43:44 pm

[Atilio Menéndez] "When I read such comments or "That's how I've made my audio editing in FCP X much easier, I've stopped using music and EFX""

that was said as a joke, it was not meant to be taken literally.

i hope.

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


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:47:29 pm

I hope so too! But next to some of the other comments it's kind of hard to tell what is a joke and what isn't...


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 7:15:40 pm

[Atilio Menéndez] "[tony west] "That was not the argument, if you could do it in ONE STEP or not."

That IS the argument!"


OK, pick that line out of the sentence

"Sorry, while i'm still beating my drum about overwrite editing, it does also seem really strange that you can't overwrite paste into the main storyline."

[Atilio Menéndez] "What's relevant is that with both the audio can then be moved independently from the video and thus be bumped out of sync,"

Yeah, if you are not that familiar with the program it can be. You can knock stuff out of sync in any program.

You are still wrong, you said they were the same and they are not.



[Atilio Menéndez] "there are situations when I would like to have them."

That's fine, it's not a big deal to me. I don't mind if they put them in.


All I can say is, if you are knocking things out of sync a lot in a program like X I don't know what to tell you brother


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:00:42 am
Last Edited By Atilio Menéndez on Jun 5, 2014 at 10:24:25 am

Oh, I agree that if you are knocking things out of sync in X a lot you are not doing things right. Sure! But in any other NLE there are out-of-sync indicators, so it's important to do things properly in X. Sure you can tell if something's out of sync when you play back the footage, but is that ideal? Detaching audio or breaking apart clip items both are the same in the sense that they make the audio liable to be pushed out of sync. Which is why I said they are virtually the same, not exactly the same. Expanding audio or expanding audio components is different in this sense and I still think it's a better practice if you want to keep stuff in sync, but anyone is free to edit how he/she wants. I think we both agreee that audio editing in X is not the monster some believe it to be.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:42:20 pm

[Atilio Menéndez] "Expanding audio or expanding audio components is different in this sense and I still think it's a better practice if you want to keep stuff in sync, but anyone is free to edit how he/she wants. "

We agree actually. the way I would do this would be to expand the audio components, range the cough out
attach room tone as cc with and adjust using the fade handles. That was my original suggestion.

He didn't like that so I offered up another option.

As far as I know, you can not cut into the audio channels in the expand mode (which is what he wanted to do)

But when you break apart clip items you can cut into it. that's the only reason I suggested that. It wouldn't be how I would do it. I just offered him that as another option.

If you were worried about that coming out of sync just turn it into a compound clip after your cut in.


Again, not how I would handle it.


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:46:29 pm

Exactly!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:53:59 pm

I'm using PPro CC and FCPX about 50/50 at the moment. When I'm using CC sync markers are essential and very useful.

When I'm using FCPX I don't miss them, for the reasons others have explained.

Having said that, I'm sure it would be useful to have them!

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:52:42 pm

[tony west] "Again, not how I would handle it."

Well then, it's obvious. It must be a design flaw!! :-D

I'm kidding, of course.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 7:52:18 pm

hehehehe : p


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 2:48:08 pm

One more thing regarding overwriting audio. Some people forget how much fun setting the Auto Select to the relevant tracks was on Legacy.

Legacy:
1. Set Auto Select to the relevant tracks
2. Set In & Out
3. Copy
4. Set Auto Select again if copying to different tracks
5. Paste
(Note that steps 1 and 4 on can involve several clicks/keystrokes!)

X:
1. Drag from in to out
2. Copy
3. Paste as connected
4. Drag from in to out
5. Mute


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:21:32 pm

[tony west] "if you just cut some room tone in it may sound cut in,"

I had the same thought. I make a secondary and put ALL the room tone there, every instance it needs it, and then i make that secondary a compound and apply Audio FX to the compound--like bussing.

In a track system, I put all the room tone on its own channel and then add effects to the channel.

Note: I also cringe every time I hear a change in microphones.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 4:42:24 pm

[Richard Herd] "Note: I also cringe every time I hear a change in microphones."

You sound a lot like me Richard. No pun intended ; )


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:50:13 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I'd be happy to show you how it works"

And that's exactly it! There are only two ways to acquire a new concept, ergo knowledge acquisition (aka epistemology). (1) By using one concept to map to another concept known as "definitions" and "denotation," and that doesn't work here because X uses new terms. (2) And the other way is ostensive.

And it's a bit of a regression to get back to something like original ostensive concepts, but actually, it appears FCP X did an interesting job of redefining the concepts of editing, and I'm not simply discussing redefining words. I mean concepts. And it actually no foolin' takes some ostensible learning (knowledge acquisition) to get it.

(Full disclosure, I'm on CS6 and or Legend, while waiting for capital approval for a new Tube with CS6 and X.) PP.cs6 has some serious flaws with a huge pile of workarounds.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 4:04:23 pm

[Richard Herd] "There are only two ways to acquire a new concept, ..."

Richard,

Well, there is the hundredth monkey phenomenon.
http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html
(I'm skeptical, but it at least brings intuition of concepts into the discussion.)

And there's genetically transmitted behaviour, which one can speculate has at least some sort of impact on concepts. There are theories of horizontal transmission as well as generational, which would have interesting implications for behaviour.

I am conflating behaviour and concepts here, but that's because I think there's likely some sort of relationship. That probably puts me in some philosophical camp that I don't know the name of.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 6:51:23 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm skeptical, but it at least brings intuition of concepts into the discussion"

I'm not sure what you're skeptical of.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I am conflating behaviour and concepts here"

And to be sure I'm talking about concept acquisition from John Pollock's epistemological point of view (I mentioned in the CC-or-not forum, I have since checked out the book from the library, Knowledge and Justification -- (a bit of light reading after a day of staring at video screens) -- from my memory not a quote:

Knowledge of the physical world which comes from sense perception (phenomenalism)

Knowledge of other minds which comes from people's behavior (behaviorism)

Knowledge of right and wrong which comes from non-moral states of affairs (naturalistic ethics).

You're on good grounds in the school of defeasibility ;) Which makes perfect sense as techno-nerds, we almost certainly always contemplate artificial intelligence, user interfaces, efficiency/shortcuts, and much of that stuff is based in Pollock's research.

Regarding the 100 monkey, methinks it's onstensive and not too fancy.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 7:19:29 pm

[Richard Herd] "I'm not sure what you're skeptical of."

[Richard Herd] "Regarding the 100 monkey, methinks it's onstensive and not too fancy."

Richard,

Well, the theory is precisely that it isn't ostensive:

"... but the habit seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously, ... in colonies on other islands and on the mainland in a troop at Takasakiyama."


ie. what started as behaviour that was taught from one monkey to the next, then suddenly was witnessed in monkeys who had no physical contact and in fact were separated by oceans.

(Note that site pretty much undercuts any claim that the cited example actually occurred. I'm interested in it more as a concept or model.)

I'm generally skeptical of mystical concepts such as this, but I don't reject this outright. So it might be mystical. Or it might be something else - perhaps certain behaviours are inevitable given the right conditions. I think Noam Chomsky's theory of language might be shoe-horned into such an understanding - that language is inherent in the human make-up and therefor it evolves in similar ways even if populations are isolated. (ie. behaviour that is "intuited" or otherwise not learned through demonstration in some instance.) I think there are similar concepts in Buddhism.

But to retrace, I also think X actually borrows all it's concepts from other examples and much like the iphone the only thing new is how it's been packaged and presented.

Prior art for both magnetism and the trackless paradigm have been discussed here before (I think). But as I said, the forum just seems to be retreading ground here ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 7:34:58 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Prior art for both magnetism and the trackless paradigm have been discussed here before "

http://sourceforge.net/projects/hyperengine/



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

~ 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: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:33:59 pm

I missed the "separated by oceans part." D'OH. Agree that I think Chomsky's nativism explains it well.

The new concepts in X (or any domain even if they are retreaded) is that the concepts can only be acquired via ostensible learning because the words describing the user interface/experience are changed, and, therefore, the new user to X does not have a background in the meaning; and hence, the meaning cannot be transferred via concept-to-concept -- leaving ostensible concept acquisition only. That's a fancy way of saying "You gotta use it to get it."

For example, Charlie (and some others) have spent a lot of time in this thread explaining how to use X in X's terms. I understand exactly what they mean, but that is because I had previously spent a lot of time using X, reading the manual, and teaching X, so I am familiar (ostensively!) with both the interface experience and the terminology.

I am also not claiming that X is earth shattering so throw away Premiere and Avid. Simply, I'm stating that the new concepts in editing that X presents can only be acquired ostensively. Moreover, this is why young kids new to editing have no problems learning X. They just jump in blind -- a de facto Blank Slate* of ostensibility.

*I don't actually believe in the tabula rosa as I understand (perhaps faulty) the Empiricists' described it. I use the term as a way to reach back to a potential, almost nirvana, freedom of/from concepts. In reality, I think Vygotsky offers better practical explanations for the teaching of concept acquisition.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 5:02:42 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jun 4, 2014 at 5:03:27 pm

[Richard Herd] "And it actually no foolin' takes some ostensible learning (knowledge acquisition) to get it."

Absolutely true. As does anything, NLE or not. If you want to see exploding heads, try showing someone who learned to cut on FCP classic how to use Media Composer. In any case... Despite how it may come off, I'm really not in the FCP X is teh bestest thing evah! camp. That's just as annoying to me as anything else, maybe more annoying. It's not, it is most definitely imperfect and needs refinement etc. But it drives me nuts when people imply that because X functions differently than a tracked NLE it is:

A-not as good
B-more complicated
C-everything is a workaround
D-unsuitable for "complex" projects
E-only used by kool-aide drinking Apple fanatics

FCP X is a really nice NLE, it just works differently than an NLE with tracks. I think the only reason I keep banging the drum is precisely because I regularly use other NLE's, sometimes even moving the same projects back and forth and I really see the difference. And I see all the criticisms, from people who I believe probably have very similar backgrounds and skills as I do, and a lot of them are complete horse poop. :-)

I, and others, are throwing ideas out in this thread that come off as convoluted because they're solutions for problems that aren't problems. The nice thing about X is that there are a lot of ways to work. Use it as designed and it's dead simple. Want to emulate tracks? You can, but you really don't need to. And if you really must have fixed tracks, there are other choices. But if there are other things about X that you think are very nice, and there's a lot more to it than the timeline, it's worth trying to get your head around cutting in it.

I'm a broken record here, but I got into this business as a sound editor/post mixer back when people were still hanging mag tracks for a mix. And saying editing audio in X is "more complicated" than other NLE's is like saying that cutting audio in a DAW is "more complicated" than scraping fades in a mag track and taping it together. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. From where I sit it's more efficient, and requires fewer "workarounds" than using tracks. Warts and all...

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

~ 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: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 5:17:09 pm

[Charlie Austin]

"A-not as good
B-more complicated
C-everything is a workaround
D-unsuitable for "complex" projects
E-only used by ... fanatics"


Charlie,

If you're making a comprehensive list, add "slower", "not as much fun" and "old"; and additional category for various flavours of "you don't really know how to use it".

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 6:46:52 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Charlie,

If you're making a comprehensive list, add "slower", "not as much fun" and "old"; and additional category for various flavours of "you don't really know how to use it"."


Yes, but I was making the X list, not MC or Pr. :-) But yes, equally misinformed, and equally wrong. I can cut very quickly in any NLE, but X is more fun. ;-)

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

~ 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: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 7:04:56 pm

[Charlie Austin] "As does anything, NLE or not"

Unfortunately that's not true.

Some things do. Some things don't. Making a list of those things is a pretty boring post. ;) Often, we can acquire new concepts by people telling us. Like my kids. I have twin daughters. If I tell Sophia, don't touch the stove because it's hot and it will burn you, then she won't. But her sister Adeline will touch the stove.


[Charlie Austin] "A-not as good
B-more complicated
C-everything is a workaround
D-unsuitable for "complex" projects
E-only used by kool-aide drinking Apple fanatics"


Yeah, I agree totally. And I would add an enthymeme (I love fancy words):

F-editors ought to use only 1 NLE.

So far, that's a nice list of false claims we have compiled :) Got any more?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 7:14:03 pm

[Richard Herd] "But her sister Adeline will touch the stove. "

Adeline should probably use FCP X then. lol

[Richard Herd] "So far, that's a nice list of false claims we have compiled :) Got any more?"

Just scroll through this thread, then this forum, then head over to the PrCC or Not forum and begin again. Could take a while... ;-)

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

~ 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: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 9:13:30 pm

I really truly LOLd.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 1:56:15 am

It's about as crazy as Pr's multichannel outputs. What takes a few clicks in fcpx takes a whole new sequence, some trickery, a few layer order operations, and setting up a new export preset and a trip to AME.

Adding another layer of a/v to knock something out of sync (or more accurately, adding another instance to move out of sync) isn't that crazy is it?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 2:41:58 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's about as crazy as Pr's multichannel outputs. What takes a few clicks in fcpx takes a whole new sequence, some trickery, a few layer order operations, and setting up a new export preset and a trip to AME.

Adding another layer of a/v to knock something out of sync (or more accurately, adding another instance to move out of sync) isn't that crazy is it?"


I give up... It's like trying to explain evolution to a creationist.

I'm cutting a thing in 7 today, and the sync audio alone, cut from a 4 channel (2x stereo) master, spans 6 tracks to avoid clip collisions and do some basic J/L cutting of the production DIA and FX. Red sync markers all over the place, despite the fact that nothing is out of sync, just overlapped. Little waveforms that give no indication of my levels. Every time I want to cut something, or move it, i need to spend a few seconds preparing the timeline to do so, Targeting, moving clips etc. Something as simple as wanting to shorten a shot and pull everything behind it up results in clip collisions using the ripple tool, (which i never really used and now I know why). So just use the track select tool to select everything and drag it around, being careful not to overwrite anything. etc. etc. etc.


All this would sit happily self contained in the primary in X. Yeah. Bananas.

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

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


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 2:00:22 pm

Go Charlie!

Everyone here also doesn't mention how you can use the Inspector to easily mute channels, and have them stay contained.

And I can only vote an extra +1 to what Charlie and Jeremy are saying here. Once you work with it, in *most* cases X is faster then a track-based NLE. You really have to get used to it, but it pays off.
There are a couple of things where X is slower, but like Charlie, I notice that I'm much more frustrated in 7 (or any other track-based NLE) missing things that X has, than the other way around.

You should work with this software. A lot. Force yourself to do it the way X does. And yes, once you wrap your head around it, this takes time as we are all used to years of working in a different way. Our muscle memory needs to change. Once it does, I really don't enjoy editing in 7 anymore, although I did it for years and thought it was the greatest NLE out there.
And, again, like Charlie said, a lot of this sometimes seems convoluted, and one of the reasons is that it uses a lot of new terminology. But once you see it all in action, you can do most things a lot faster, and with much more fun than other NLE's.
Like others, I missed sync-indicators in the beginning. Now I don't anymore. I think my brain is wrapped around how stuff works in X.
I used to look at X and *think* in track-based terms, and saw everything as work-arounds. Now I look at X in its own terms, and I work faster (and with more joy) then any other NLE. And I'm not a saint, I make the mistake if I look at track-based NLE's now. I think: why don't they have the magnetic timeline? Why do people in track-based editing do so much work-arounds to do what I can do much more non-destructive and faster in X?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 2:21:46 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] " a lot of this sometimes seems convoluted, and one of the reasons is that it uses a lot of new terminology."

Apple has greatly increased the number of specialized tools needed to work in a timeline in order to achieve their NLE design goals and the terminology simply reflects that. X doesn't have tracks, and to replace that single item you have primaries, secondaries, clip connections, roles, position tools ... again, horses for courses, for the many who continue to use it this is a good thing, but the reason X sounds so complex is because, compared to traditional NLEs, it is.

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


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 2:57:35 pm

I'm not sure if this is true, Herb.
In that sense that if you would start from a blank slate, would all the track-based NLE's with their terminology (sync-indicators, bins, subclips, patching, clip colissions, etc etc) not also also have their own terminology?
Once you start from a blank slate, Who rules that FCPX is there-fore the difficult one and the traditional NLE's are the Simple ones?

If you learn someone edit on X that doesn't have previous experience in a track-based NLE, a lot of this perception goes away. They just accept it for what it is. It is people (Like me, once) that did track-based editing for Years (some of you even decades) that are having the most difficult time adjusting.

As someone who grew up with Première and based my living on editing on FCP7, I think it's brave that Apple dared to re-think editing. And therefore it also needed new terminology to break away clearly from old perceptions.
Yes, X had and has growing pains. What do you expect if you try to break new ground? IOS also needed a lot of maturing (no 3rd party apps at first, no copy paste, ...).
I think after being skeptical of X and refusing it first but learning it to at this point, switching 100 percent of my work and that of the facility where I work freelance to X, I really think the magnetic timeline and Roles are a much better alternative than tracks. And I really think it's the way of the future.
It just Needs some maturing to do (look at Marcus' blog post about Roles and how it could behave for audio mixing). But therefore it Needs maturing of the concepts it has now and not going back to tracks.
Even in it's 'young' form, I already like X more than 'traditional' NLE's.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:31:13 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "In that sense that if you would start from a blank slate, would all the track-based NLE's with their terminology (sync-indicators, bins, subclips, patching, clip colissions, etc etc) not also also have their own terminology?"

I agree that non-linear editing is a complex task and all software will reflect that with arcane terminology suited to describing this complexity. However this thread was narrowly focused on audio editing. My own sub-thread contributions are narrowly focused on audio insert editing. My point to you is that the magnetic timeline specifically has more complex terminology than traditional timelines because it has a more complex tool set than traditional NLEs in order to meet it's unique design goals. I don't doubt that you find this to your advantage in your style of editing, I don't doubt that many here will agree with you, I'm not arguing better or worse, I'm just stating what is to me an obvious fact.

The other point I was trying to make earlier with Jeremy is that the designers of X did not have audio insert editing in mind when they designed X. The fact that there are so many ways to achieve the same results is an argument for the richness of the X tool set, but when it takes a number of steps to achieve something so basic, then you are obviously "working around" the designer's intents.

A comparative in PPro - multicam in PPro does not allow you to do audio only edits from any camera angle and channel you wish. There are many options to do many things, but none match the criteria I just layed out. However I can make it happen by using other methods, some of which go outside the multicam mode. This is a work-around. It works because PPro has a rich tool set, but it wasn't designed to work this way.

Sometimes the work-arounds provide benefits far beyond the traditional way of doing things, sometimes they are compromises, but it's fairly obvious when you're working around the designer's intentions and when you are not.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 12:56:15 am

[Herb Sevush] "The other point I was trying to make earlier with Jeremy is that the designers of X did not have audio insert editing in mind when they designed X. The fact that there are so many ways to achieve the same results is an argument for the richness of the X tool set, but when it takes a number of steps to achieve something so basic, then you are obviously "working around" the designer's intents."

I'm sorry, but this is silly. It seems to me you are saying that adding audio is impossible.

It's not.

If audio is in a secondary, you can achieve the exact same thing as you can in tracks. I can insert audio.

If audio is not in a secondary, the audio has to be layered. BFD.

I'm not working around a function that doesn't exist, I am using the NLE like it was designed to function.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:37:43 am

I'm sorry if I got it wrong but I had assumed, since no one challenged it, that this quote was accurate

i was trying to say i want to simply "cut a piece of room tone directly into the audio of an interview clip, thereby in effect "embedding it", directly in my main timeline, without clicking into another timeline, or opening as timeline, or making a compound clip, or "detaching' the audio. A more complicated way of saying, i want to alter the audio "track" as if it lived in a "track", which in the main storyline it doesn't, unless you of course "detach" it... My way of saying, the functionality of the main storyline is strange and requires odd workarounds compared to treating all "tracks" or "layers" or "lanes" as equals. Thats what i want! Equality for all clips!... X unfortunately forces a hierarchy.

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/69569

So either you can directly insert audio, like room tone, directly into the primary storyline with one click, which any other NLE can do, or it's a multi-step process - which one is it?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:17:49 am

[Herb Sevush] "So either you can directly insert audio, like room tone, directly into the primary storyline with one click, which any other NLE can do, or it's a multi-step process - which one is it?"

I have never seen a one click room tone button in any NLE. As far as I know, it's a multi step process of finding the room tone, targeting the destination, and overwriting, or replacing, or whatever operation you are going to do.

It's about the same in X. If your are trying to do this to a video clip in the primary, the room tone will be connected.

If it's audio only in the primary or secondary, it works pretty much like tracks.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 11:25:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have never seen a one click room tone button in any NLE."

Wouldn't that be a nice feature, especially if it created the tone by sampling the nearest clips.

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's about the same in X. If your are trying to do this to a video clip in the primary, the room tone will be connected. "

But then you also have to remove the bad sound in a separate operation, no? And unless I misread the comments here, connected clips are in some ways limited in terms of EFX and transitions. So you have a 2 step process leaving you with a somewhat compromised result. I doubt you would have designed it to work this way. I know I wouldn't.

As to the silliness of this, or how much it matters, I understand that operationally it isn't a big deal, but as an indication of the designer's intent and priorities I find it interesting.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:03:51 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But then you also have to remove the bad sound in a separate operation, no? And unless I misread the comments here, connected clips are in some ways limited in terms of EFX and transitions. So you have a 2 step process leaving you with a somewhat compromised result. I doubt you would have designed it to work this way. I know I wouldn't."

Sure, you'll have to do something with the bad audio which is a very simple and quick process in x via a number of different methods. Connected clips aren't limited with Efx and transitions. Sometimes you have to add a secondary if you want an actual dissolve, but you can use fade handles like any other track based program as well.

As far as setting out to design the magnetic timeline, I think it's a major undertaking that is downplayed here significantly. Was it was realeased "too early"? Blah blah blah, sort of but not really. Would it be where it is today if it wasn't released at that time? We will never know.

I find the magnetic timeline to be beneficial, especially with more and more attended edits I have been hosting lately. It's ridiculously fast to make changes and explore content with not a lot of penalty.

Audio could use a few more tweaks, and so could keyboard clip layer navigation (a big one for me), but yesterday I was doing real time mixed res multicam (4k and 1080) in a 1080 timeline with 18 channels of available audio, a chromakey, two stacked, keyframed, and animated layers of type, with multiple grades, with scale and crop on video layers, in real time, in full quality (best quality not better performance) SDI to a monitor, using native XAVC MXF media (not ProRes or Proxy). Not one render, background or otherwise, until export.

Having to trim or mute a bit of unwanted audio to make way for room tone is fine by me. It's trivial, really.

It is no doubt that Apple set out to design the amount of full quality real time performance available in X, so as we have said any times in this forum, insanity beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:24:35 am

Inserting audio one-step, overwriting audio two-step (insert as connected, remove unwanted audio).
But then again, in Legacy it isn't exactly a one-step process either, since you have to set the appropriate Auto Select tracks previously. No such thing in X.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 11:14:07 am

[Atilio Menéndez] "in Legacy it isn't exactly a one-step process either, since you have to set the appropriate Auto Select tracks previously. No such thing in X."

Only if you need to change them. Most of the time my default targets work just fine. i.e., in a situation where I'm going thru a show and constantly dropping in room tone on track 1 I never have to change the targets.

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


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 1:40:35 pm

Fair enough. It's true that one usually doesn't need to change targets very much. It still feels very clunky when you are used to not having to.

But what about what's probably THE other most common operation when audio editing: changing the volume of part of an audio clip using keyframes?

Legacy:
1. select pen tool
2. set first keyframe
3. set second keyframe
4. set third keyframe
5. set fourth keyframe
6. change to selection tool
7. drag up/down between keyframes 2 & 3 to adjust volume
Note, also, that playback stops as soon as you make an adjustment.

X:
1. select range tool (if audio components are expanded this is NOT NECESSARY since the range tool activates automatically)
2. drag horizontally (or you can simply select IN and OUT)
3. drag up/down (or use the keyboard)
And playback does not stop while adjusting.

So in legacy this most common operation involves more than TWICE as many clicks/steps! Plus in legacy you are forced to press the spacebar repeatedly. This all becomes VERY tedious once you have experienced a better way.

Also, to adjust audio keyframes in X you simply range-select them and drag them horizontally or vertically. In legacy, to move them horizontally you need to open the clip in the viewer then use the slip tool there, where you lose visual connection to the other clips in the timeline. And vertically you are limited to adjusting ALL the keyframes in a clip at once, by using the gain adjust window.

And the fact that you can make adjustments without interrupting playback is really a big timesaver. Audio editing (and editing in general) in legacy feels soooooooo slow once you properly learn and get used to X. But unless you have actually used it, you can't really know this. The above is just one example among many.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:05:09 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:08:58 pm

[Atilio Menéndez] "But what about what's probably THE other most common operation when audio editing: changing the volume of part of an audio clip using keyframes?"

Atilio,

You should really try using automated keyframing.

1. Hit play.
2. Listen and adjust fader.

[Atilio Menéndez] "So in legacy this most common operation involves more than TWICE as many clicks/steps!"

... only if you're trying to operate it like X.

[Atilio Menéndez] "This all becomes VERY tedious once you have experienced a better way."

Indeed.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:23:19 pm

But automated keyframing is not the same. You have to coordinate the adjustment in realtime and in the case of very brief sounds that is very difficult or simply impossible. And then you almost always have to adjust the keyframes anyways, which in legacy is not exactly a pleasure.

That being said, automated keyframing is great and a FREAKIN MIXER are sorely needed in X land, no discussion there!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:58:34 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You should really try using automated keyframing.

1. Hit play.
2. Listen and adjust fader.
"


Are you saying hitting play and adjusting a fader isn't possible in fcpx, Franz?

There isn't a mixer, but there are faders, or you can simply make adjustments on the audio in the timeline while it's playing.

And, you can actually see, via the waveforms, where you might need to make some adjustments, so it's not all lost and not all bad.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 3:11:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Are you saying hitting play and adjusting a fader isn't possible in fcpx, Franz?"

Jeremy,

No. I would have thought that was clear from what was written.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:21:27 pm

[Atilio Menéndez] "So in legacy this most common operation involves more than TWICE as many clicks/steps! Plus in legacy you are forced to press the spacebar repeatedly. This all becomes VERY tedious once you have experienced a better way."

Legacy is deader than a Dodo, I'm not comparing Legacy to FCPX, I'm just looking at some of the design decisions that went into X. All NLEs have strengths and weaknesses, it's helpful to understand the basic design priorities that goes into creating them. As for adjusting volume I currently use PPro and I can mix on the fly with it's internal mixer - no keyframing at all if I want.

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


Return to posts index

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:37:46 pm

True, but comparing X to Legacy shows precisely what the developer team has been trying to improve and thus indicates their priorities quite well. Clearly, considerable effort has gone into making audio editing more efficient, even if the whole thing is still half baked. One can therefore at least expect them to continue going in that direction.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:39:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "... no keyframing at all if I want."

Herb,

Strictly speaking this is called "ultra-keyframing" (others refer to it as "hover-keyframing") and just feels as if no keyframing takes place.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:46:00 pm

[Herb Sevush] "it's helpful to understand the basic design priorities that goes into creating them."

All due respect, since the demo is free, maybe you should try to learn how to use X as it was designed. This discussion would make much more sense to you. :-)

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

~ 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

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 4:17:33 pm

[Charlie Austin] "All due respect, since the demo is free, maybe you should try to learn how to use X as it was designed."

Not my methodology. I'm one of those editors who can only work on one system at a time. Takes about a month of howling and two more of sobbing before I can get comfortable. That's why I research all I can before I take the plunge - there is no NLE ever made that I don't hate and loath for at least the first few weeks, so dabbling with a demo doesn't work for me. I'm just switching to PPro Cloud now and if you think I'm critical of X, I'm positively effusive about it in comparison to my loathing of anything Adobe at this stage. Fortunately experience has taught me that this too shall pass and sometime by September I will have a more balanced view of it.

The reason I poke around at X is because i do find it intriguing. There is much I admire and envy in it's capabilities, auditions and multicam being at the top of the list, but so much of it's design philosophy goes totally against the grain for me that when I had to jump from Legacy I jumped elsewhere. Like a pretty girl with an ugly mind, you don't want to take her to bed but it's hard not to look.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 4:55:19 pm

[Herb Sevush] " Like a pretty girl with an ugly mind, you don't want to take her to bed but it's hard not to look."

lol... I get i.e., but to continue thaw analogy... She's not at all as dumb as she appears. Try getting too know her. Just because she speaks another language doesn't mean she's not really smart. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 8:00:52 pm

[Charlie Austin] "She's not at all as dumb as she appears."

...or well maybe say she's got framed PHDs on the wall, but somehow can't tie her own shoes at the same time.
Which i guess could happen to an editing hothouse child, home schooled in a closed box in cupertino..

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 8:24:03 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...or well maybe say she's got framed PHDs on the wall, but somehow can't tie her own shoes at the same time.
Which i guess could happen to an editing hothouse child, home schooled in a closed box in cupertino.."


Do me a favor... Learn how to use FCP X. Then, maybe your diatribes will have some relevance. Other than their entertainment value of course. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 9:36:09 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Do me a favor... Learn how to use FCP X. "

I'm not that bad at it charlie - there's just a lot I fundamentally disagree with - the point is that the things that you say people don't get, are the points that they fundamentally disagree with in terms of the approach. That's why I say kool-aid - people who defend the approaches continue to act like other people don't get something. There's nothing not to get - its not a Russian doll of comprehension mate. It's just what it is.

the inspector is ludicrously powerful in terms of audio channel handling, and across multiple timeline instances and that - the CC stuff is basically amazing even with the square CC box, the source skimming deserves a prize, the tagging is a smarter future maybe, but the timeline is a mess to me looking at it - I'm not failing to understand anything - I reject it.

point at issue: its moronic freeform XY jello motion for all clips when moving them, that's total crass madness for fine detail work - the timeline is outright brain damaged to me.
and to a lot of people. hence the software being a little dead in the water.

I'd go back to the stupid freeform pixel by pixel movement of clips connected or otherwise - the fact that apple allow the clip to stagger around horizontally and vertically just feels like the stupidest thing. It doesn't inform much, but it destroys the nature of sequential frame movement. I personally dislike apple for that basic stupidity.

strongly justified horizontal movement of a VA item until you break over or under the track makes fundamental sense. you guys might all think this elastic playdo XY dragging environment is great fun - but I think (well let's argue said the thread) you're all mentally damaged, crazy and you're all operating a horrible set of timeline rules that pointlessly degrade the basic and key left to right frame based logic in order to throw around ludicrous, ham fisted meccano pieces.

ahem.

so that there is a critique for you bud :)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 11:11:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'm not that bad at it charlie - there's just a lot I fundamentally disagree with - the point is that the things that you say people don't get, are the points that they fundamentally disagree with in terms of the approach. That's why I say kool-aid - people who defend the approaches continue to act like other people don't get something. There's nothing not to get - its not a Russian doll of comprehension mate. It's just what it is."

For the record, I'm not the "you don't get it" guy. :-) I do, however, feel like once you're in the flow of how X works for a while, suddenly it seems more sensible than previous approaches. The one specific "complaint" here is that you can't insert audio into the audio components of a clip while other NLE's can do that. But they can't, since there's no such thing as a clip with audio components in any other NLE. If you detach the audio from the clip, which takes less time than targeting tracks, it works just the same. Admittedly, there are no sync markers. Other than that, if I work with audio separate from the video it's the same as anything else. But I generally don't because there's (most of the time) no reason to. Like I've said, if you need to work that way use an NLE with tracks.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but the timeline is a mess to me looking at it - I'm not failing to understand anything - I reject it."

I did too, it was a chore to do anything for a while. And I could have just stopped there, but I guess maybe I have more tolerance for change or something... I saw it as a challenge. For me, and many others, it's been worth it.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'd go back to the stupid freeform pixel by pixel movement of clips connected or otherwise - the fact that apple allow the clip to stagger around horizontally and vertically just feels like the stupidest thing."

I kind of agree, but for a different reason. I'd like it to happen faster, more responsively.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It doesn't inform much, but it destroys the nature of sequential frame movement."

Guess we disagree there, doesn't have that effect on me at all.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "you're all mentally damaged, crazy and you're all operating a horrible set of timeline rules that pointlessly degrade the basic and key left to right frame based logic in order to throw around ludicrous, ham fisted meccano pieces."

Nice! :-) I could make the same argument about paint by the numbers everything in it's place rigid track structure.

I guess for me, what it boils down to, is I spend less time fiddling around with the software in X. I can just cut. It's a cliché, but it's true. And, other than personal preferences which are totally valid, I find much of the criticism of the X timeline and it's shortcomings to wildly misinformed and/or ridiculously incorrect. I do actual day to day work in X, 7, and Pr, and mess around in MC and Resolve now and again. But I know them all well enough to cut any sort of job in. X is way more... efficient. And I don't get how people with similar skills and backgrounds can't see that. Just as you probably don't get why I do. I can assure you though, it's got nothing to do with Kool-Aide drinking.

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 6, 2014 at 12:03:29 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jun 6, 2014 at 12:31:43 am

[Charlie Austin] "[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'd go back to the stupid freeform pixel by pixel movement of clips connected or otherwise - the fact that apple allow the clip to stagger around horizontally and vertically just feels like the stupidest thing."

I kind of agree, but for a different reason. I'd like it to happen faster, more responsively.
"


charlie, baby, do you want the clips to come out of the screen in 3D? because its hard to know where to take that..

as you drag the clip object randomly freeform vertically and horizontally in a photoshop style canvas space, where do you feel the frame iteration is in the move of the clip? I'm trying hard to ask you a fairly serious cognitive question there. I certainly have basic issues with what the clips are doing. nevermind the stupid immaterial connection points animating their position every second. It's maybe possible you are ignoring some issues here.

it feels like software engineers destroying fundamental time based interaction legibility for the sake of being different. I'm not even kidding here - the point of moving a clip is to object reposition it in time primarily - then maybe layer order secondarily - not have it seesawing all over the place with connection tendrils going crazy - and lets not forget the ten other mecanno things maybe attached to the clip I'm trying to consider . It's just a joke charlie - that whole insane scenario. all of it was just meaningless stupidity the second apple thought it up.

the X timeline is, in the end, a gigantically rare dead elephant in the room. people will look on its bones for the ages.

so - you know - the argument thread :)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 6, 2014 at 12:54:08 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jun 6, 2014 at 12:55:07 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "charlie, baby, do you want the clips to come out of the screen in 3D? because its hard to know where to take that.."

Yes! 3D! lol... What I mean is that when I reposition clip in vertical space, i'd like the other clips to react faster when getting out of the way. Sometimes there's a tiny lag, I'd like it to be instantaneous.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "as you drag the clip object randomly freeform vertically and horizontally in a photoshop style canvas space, where do you feel the frame iteration is in the move of the clip? I'm trying hard to ask you a fairly serious cognitive question there."

I'm not sure I get the question... It's the same as when i move a clip in a tracked timeline. If I want to move it an exact number of frames I use the KB, otherwise I just drag it. Makes no difference to me where it goes vertically, unless I put it somewhere specific.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "nevermind the stupid immaterial connection points animating their position every second. It's maybe possible you are ignoring some issues here"

Those "stupid, immaterial connection points" are anything but. They're amazing for audio because the connection point shows the video frame it's connected to. If you set the connection point on an audio sync point, the syncing it to pix is brainlessly easy, you see what frame it's linked to. This is really really useful for SFX work, which I do a ton of. Works for compositing too. It is you who are ignoring something. ;-)


[Aindreas Gallagher] "not have it seesawing all over the place with connection tendrils going crazy - and lets not forget the ten other mecanno things maybe attached to the clip I'm trying to consider . It's just a joke charlie - that whole insane scenario. all of it was just meaningless stupidity the second apple thought it up"


This is how you perceive it, not what it actually does.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the X timeline is, in the end, a gigantically rare dead elephant in the room. people will look on its bones for the ages."

I have a feeling they'll be looking at the bones of all the editors here, myself included, and wondering what all the fuss was about.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "so - you know - the argument thread :)"

You sure it isn't abuse? :-)







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

~ 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

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 6, 2014 at 6:48:42 am
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Jun 6, 2014 at 6:59:20 am

[Charlie Austin] "Other than their entertainment value of course. :-)"

Not sure they even have those any more, it all seems like a "Greatest Hits" tour now, there's no original material!

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 5:02:51 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Takes about a month of howling and two more of sobbing before I can get comfortable. "







Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 5:15:41 pm

Jeremy -

The only thing I need opened is the bottle of gin I bought to get me thru the next few weeks.

Don't know if your a Philip K Dick fan but the original title of the story that Total Recall was based on is "We Can Remember It for You, Wholesale." Blade Runner was based on the novel "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep?" - Dick definitely had a way with titles. And the books were pretty good too. (that was a major understatement.)

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:48:20 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "And I really think it's the way of the future."

If this forum is any indication, the future looks exactly like the past.

Maybe with additional sarcasm.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:51:32 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "the future looks exactly like the past.

Maybe with additional sarcasm."


Trademark that. Sell t-shirts and make Facebook memes! Quick, before I do ;)


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 2:46:06 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "Like others, I missed sync-indicators in the beginning. Now I don't anymore. "

how do you stop missing sync indicators?

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


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:10:46 pm

Because in the beginning you edit in systems you know. You detach audio because it 'looks' like things you are used to - having a blue clip and a green clip separate.
After a while you realize that in 99 percent of the cases you don't need to detach audio unless you want to purposely BREAK sync.
After a while I realized most of the times I was unnecessarily detaching audio.

It would be nice if there would be option to put audio immediately back with it's associated clip, like in the contextual menu. Of course.
But do I miss it? No.

Will there be a couple of cases where it takes X a couple of more keystrokes to get to what you want? Probably. But the opposite is also true, and in my experience, much more so. Where you need much more keystrokes in traditional NLE's (Charlie's post is an example of this, above, working with 6 tracks, patching, for making J&L cuts, etc. ...) than you need in X.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 12:19:38 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "how do you stop missing sync indicators?"

Once you stop looking for them.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:51:58 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so right - you're now making effectively a nested sequence to try and regain sync. mmm. that all sounds aces charlie. completely on the ball methodology there."

A CC is not a nested sequence in the FCP 7 sense. It's a clip like any other. Master clips in X can be opened and edited. But you go on believing what you will. All I know, is that I am cutting today in the perfectly realized, nicely ordered, beloved FCP 7 timeline. It is awful.

Clunky, inflexible, mind numbingly annoying. But, clearly, according to you, it is much better than X, so I must be doing something wrong. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need some Kool Aide....

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:46:23 pm

[Charlie Austin] "so I must be doing something wrong."

no charlie - you know the thing. I'm just unwilling to go through that.

[Charlie Austin] "All I know, is that I am cutting today in the perfectly realised, nicely ordered, beloved FCP 7 timeline. It is awful. "

no its not. It's still better than the guild protected lunacy of avid, it's less preferable than premiere CC - but it's still in its bones a class act.

bachelder pause

FCP was a classy, decade long transformative gift. Apple built it like they meant it. with a team to match. it's an old aircraft carrier, but they did build an aircraft carrier.
do you think there is a similar squad with X. or that some stuff really needs to get fixed.

aperture is apparently probably dead as of yesterday. not that anyone says that happily.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:02:47 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:03:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "no its not. It's still better than the guild protected lunacy of avid, it's less preferable than premiere CC - but it's still in its bones a class act."

OK, "awful" was hyperbole, but I really would prefer to be doing this in X, it is orders of magnitude gooder. I used to beta test good old "classic" so in some small way, I helped make it what it was/is. But there's a better way and it's hard to un-see it once seen. :-)

[Aindreas Gallagher] "do you think there is a similar squad with X. or that some stuff really needs to get fixed."

I know there is a similar squad. I also know that some stuff really needs to be fixed. But some things that people think need "fixing" really aren't broken. Just different. Despite all it's uh, nuances... FCP X feels the most like FCP 7 when I'm cutting in it. Perhaps hard to believe, but it's true...

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

~ 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

Atilio Menéndez
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:04:57 pm

I agree it's bananas. Just like removing a perfectly functional, often used command from a context menu ("break apart clip items"), or not including others where it perfectly makes sense (right clicking on the small exclamation mark which appears on an event name where there's offline media in order to... well... guess what). I guess/hope it's just due to sloppiness.

But I don't think this in particular is due to "restrictive decisions apple took in the design of the timeline". I mean, there is really no reason why the overwriting could't be done, or why the "muting" couldn't happen automatically. To be fair, one drag and a keystroke is all it takes for the muting, but still it's quite silly. X is specially exasperating due to the mixture of great features and ridiculous mistakes and omissions.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 4:45:56 pm

[Joshua Pearson] " i was trying to say i want to simply "cut a piece of room tone directly into the audio of an interview clip"

And you don't want to just select "break apart clip items" and do it that way?

I don't know, it seems like what you are trying to do wouldn't take me all that long to do. I must be missing it.

I will leave you to it.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 5:09:19 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's a seriously rich blend of kool aid and stockhom syndrome, all polished off with that one dude going: - mmmm - "I find audio editing more elegant in x" "

It is. Runs circles around other NLE's.

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

~ 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

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 6:09:05 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "sometimes - just sometimes - the exchanges between x proponents on here do actually boggle the mind.
It's just the way they're all happily doing these completely insane things, and thinking its all breezy.
"


Yes, I certainly am, because I love Apple soooooo much, I'm happy to make my editing much more difficult every day, that's what us FCP X users do.

The Kool-aid makes it all worth it

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 6:43:18 pm

[Steve Connor] "Yes, I certainly am, because I love Apple soooooo much, I'm happy to make my editing much more difficult every day, that's what us FCP X users do."

Me too! I have 5 NLE's available on my system, and I love working in X because it makes everything I do such a chore! It's terrible, so I use it as much as I can! Because I love Apple!!!!

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

~ 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: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 8:43:06 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Steve Connor] "Yes, I certainly am, because I love Apple soooooo much, I'm happy to make my editing much more difficult every day, that's what us FCP X users do."

Me too! I have 5 NLE's available on my system, and I love working in X because it makes everything I do such a chore! It's terrible, so I use it as much as I can! Because I love Apple!!!!"


Me three.

Actually, I recently sustained a head injury and discovered a new ability to edit telekinetically - and now all I have to do is THINK an edit and it happens!!!

Yet I'm so obsessed with Apple that I refuse to do any telepathic editing at all, and instead use X on a laptop to honor the tradition of religious fanatics who would scourge themselves with corded whips and wear hair shirts in devotion to their beloved deities.

So there.

; )

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

TImothy Auld
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:11:39 pm
Last Edited By TImothy Auld on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:20:13 pm

Yes. And that's how I find myself working with FCPX: Wrestling it to the ground. How hard would it be to have user enabled functions (of almost any kind?) How hard would it be to make it work for the folks who built it into what it became. How hard would it be to put back 4 or 5 functionalities (including ichat theater - I mean what the hell is going on there? Adobe has nothing approaching it. And it is lead pipe cinch gone in FCPX. And where did it go? AND WHY?

Tim


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:40:24 am

Amazing how willing some folks are to twist themselves into a pretzel to complete a task available in virtually every other NLE without connecting, un-connecting, opening in time line clips. Hey. They're Apple. They know what's best. I'm sure I'll feel better about this in 90 to 100 days!


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 12:55:04 pm

I just spent 8 hours in Avid.
Please tell me why my head hurts working with their audio tools.
Sure they have some proven options (RTAS for me) but dealing with the audio layout has always been annoying (Im talking 8 years here)and found myself running to Premiere and FCP legacy to feel sane again.
But now that Im working more and more in FCPX, Avid makes me feel so dumb at times :P
I think everyone is right that its a choice and not everyone feels the way I/you do.
My main Avid editor will not let go and will die if Avid fizzles out.
He vows to never learn another NLE (even though its the only one he knows) again.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 5:27:23 pm

[Eric Santiago] "My main Avid editor will not let go and will die if Avid fizzles out.
He vows to never learn another NLE (even though its the only one he knows) again."


This is an almost unfathomable attitude. Obviously staff and not a freelancer.

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 2:27:53 pm

[Andy Field] "NLE without connecting, un-connecting,"

I never really saw connected clips as that different from tracks from the beginning.

The basic rule is the same. You are stacking clips above and below. It's not like all of the sudden to font somebody you are putting it below instead of on top.

I see those connected clips as "tracks" with more flexibility.

[Andy Field] "They're Apple. They know what's best."

This part seems unrealistic to me. It seems to imply that people would be loyal to something (other than themselves and their direct family) over their own personal comfort.

I find that premise hard to believe.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:24:35 pm
Last Edited By Andy Field on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:25:02 pm

Tony - i was referring to earlier comment that it takes 90 to 120 days to get used to something new.....I don't know, if its designed well it shouldn't take any time at all. Imagine if it took 90 to 120 days to get used to the new Iphone......pretty sure it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar business.

the "give me FCP X or hit the road" crowd is so invested in other's validating their choice they seem to need to make everyone else either wrong or luddites for not agreeing with them.

Me - whatever works for you...great....go for it.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:42:27 pm

[Andy Field] "the "give me FCP X or hit the road" crowd is so invested in other's validating their choice they seem to need to make everyone else either wrong or luddites for not agreeing with them."

That may be true of the "give me FCP X or hit the road" crowd, but not everyone who likes using X is in that camp. Some are professional editors, who use and are familiar with variety of NLE's, that actually like using FCP X.

I'm not sure why that's so hard for the "X is bananas and unsuited for proper editing" crowd to understand.

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

~ 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

Andy Field
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 9:52:39 pm

I hear you Charlie......like that "X is Bananas"......tasty.......frankly the only thing that really bugs me is lack of a mixer and audio tracks....I just don't want another step of roles and exporting etc.....Keywords is great but so is organizing how you like things in bins or reels (mostly reels as I come from old school film beginnings)

a lot of the controls are too small for my aging eyes...the color square doesn't seem to be much of an improvement over the color wheel....losing the Motion roundtrip was a step backwards...custom window layouts ..as far as i can tell..aren't doable (may be wrong about that)

Seems sluggish sometimes on even the fastest machines (latest Retina powerbook)

Has great multi-cam -- terrific for laying everything in and banging it out quickly

I come from an audio background - many decades in Radio and TV.....and like the tactile "mix while you go" feel of a mixer (even virtual on screen)... everything can't be solved with a range select...much can finessed with a slow music fill in between breaths and soundbites that is just too fiddle-y with the current just use FCP X sound tools

Other than that - good editor

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 3, 2014 at 7:08:02 pm

[TImothy Auld] "I am seriously worried about the mental and physical health of some regular posters here.
"


You needn't have worried

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Audio editing in FCPX
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:53:31 pm

well, OP did seem to be asking for an old style argument, and look - we've had one.

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


Return to posts index

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