FORUMS: list search recent posts

Audio Mix Window

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
James Ewart
Audio Mix Window
on Jul 12, 2014 at 6:23:48 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 12, 2014 at 6:24:41 am

Hello

Do you think Apple are likely to introduce a traditional audio mix window anytime in the future?

I am no audio mixer and anything complex I will export but I think the lack of this window is a bit of a barrier to people used to having it in traditional NLEs. (Just my personal experience of people I know). Or is this something people are just going to have to "get over"?

Is this a tired debate that is done and dusted? if so apologies but I have done a search and can't find a specific thread.

cheers

james

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 12, 2014 at 8:53:48 am

I suspect if they do that, it's going to look significantly different than mixers one might be used to.

Consider that with embedded audio being the default Primary Storyline mode - and in Secondaries and Compound Clips - any or all of which can be slid over or under any video tracks - and with the ability to Break Apart Audio from Video and/or use wild imported discrete audio as well, X might be potentially a bit tricker than a standard NLE where every audio track is simply laid out on the lower levels of a tracked timeline and that once it's put there it can be expected to stay there.

That's kinda the point of the Roles thing. It's a metadata abstraction that allows audio to float into and out of any storyline virtual "lanes" while always retaining it's Role attributes.

It will be fascinating how they address this and still make it a "mixer" that retains some semblance of the physical "channel strip" focused boards we're all accustomed to.

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

James Ewart
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 12, 2014 at 9:06:24 am

I just wonder might this be the deal breaker for a lot of the major broadcasters, facilities houses and major motion picture editors?

The FCPX video interface just requires mental adjustment I found. But for audio mixing can it achieve everything that could be achieved with the traditional window in Legacy?

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 12, 2014 at 3:09:21 pm

At present, no. But in both visual organization and grouping/bussing of audio elements, Roles could fill this gap. But it's not there yet.

They overriding key is to give the organizational and mixing function of tracks without compromising the flexibility of the trackless timeline.

Here's my thoughts on Roles-

http://disproportionatepictures.blogspot.ca/2014/05/roles.html

Working up a follow-up post to address audio components. They present a special problem, since they're linked visually to video elements. If we're going to see a "Roles organized" timeline, I think we'll need an alternate mode that allows FCP X to break up audio components and group them by Role.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 12, 2014 at 11:02:23 pm

However they get there, group and master bussing is essential and compound clips won't cut it. This is even more critical these days in broadcast, where CALM Act loudness compliance is becoming a delivery requirement. I can do that easily now in Premiere Pro and Audition. I can do it in Logic Pro X if I buy third party metering. I cannot do it inside FCP X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 4:36:02 am

Concur! It seems easy to design an audio panel that included a "bus" for each role with an effects panel for each bus where you could apply plug-ins? And a Master bus where you could apply a compressor for CALM or whatever. I really wouldn't miss a mixer as long as I had this additional control.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 5:55:13 am

I knew nothing of this CALM act of which you speak and can somebody out there tell me if something is in the pipeline in the UK. I hold the 'gizmo' (that's remote control unit in UK English) as a gunfighter would in a duel when a commercial break is approaching. It sounds like a good law.


Return to posts index

Jari Innanen
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 8:04:35 am

It is EBU R128 in Europe:

https://tech.ebu.ch/loudness


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 1:31:59 pm

Also this:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP202.pdf

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 1:40:02 pm

Those commercials mixers are clever girls and boys. They seem to live within the law but so adept are they with their Compressor filters it still seems loud to me.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 1:51:55 pm

[James Ewart] "They seem to live within the law but so adept are they with their Compressor filters it still seems loud to me"

The loudness specs are averaged over time. In a commercial, the overall levels are relatively low, but can be highly compressed and so appear to sound louder than the surrounding programs. Of course, a mixer may deliver a spot or show within spec and then it gets jacked up down the line, through distribution and transmission.

In FCP X, a compliant mix generally seems to hit in the range below -12 on the meters, with peaks hitting at -12.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 1:56:00 pm

Okay.

I'm too loud. never had any major complaints from my audio colleagues because I guess they prefer me giving them to much because I am peaking usually between -12 and -6.

Thanks

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index


Dave Gage
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 11:16:29 pm

[James Ewart] "I am peaking usually between -12 and -6."

This is completely off the topic of broadcast, but I try to average between -3 and -6 when going directly to the web and set my Flash video player volume default at 100% and let the user control their own volume. At one point, I had a couple of complaints that the audio for my video was too quiet when I was averaging between -12 and -6. As many others here, I do also use the built-in FCPX Compressor with Limiter.

Dave


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:54:45 pm

I could only give you one +1. So here is more +1 +1 +1 :)


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:52:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Of course, a mixer may deliver a spot or show within spec and then it gets jacked up down the line, through distribution and transmission"

In reality, the spots I master are almost always louder than -12, and I am the guy who fixes it -- yes, in Premiere CS6. The Dynamics filter is great and the audio mixer is too! The files I export sit on an ad server waiting for tone, then they are broadcast. Lots and lots of Toyota.


Return to posts index


Richard Herd
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:49:42 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This is even more critical these days in broadcast, where CALM Act loudness compliance is becoming a delivery requirement. I can do that easily now in Premiere Pro and Audition. I can do it in Logic Pro X if I buy third party metering. I cannot do it inside FCP X."

You can and cannot do what exactly? How does measuring the db level change because of the CALM Act?

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:25:47 pm

[Richard Herd] "You can and cannot do what exactly? How does measuring the db level change because of the CALM Act?"

To properly create a compliant mix, you have to have the appropriate loudness metering - either hardware or software. Assuming software, then we are talking about a plug-in that needs to be in the signal chain of the NLE - usually at the end of the line, with a compressor preceding it.

In FCP X, I can only do this by adding a plug-in to a compound clip. But the mixing has to occur inside of that compound, where I gain no benefit from that metering, because I can't see it while I'm making the adjustments.

In Premiere Pro CC, I can add a meter (TC Electronics Radar) at the end of the line on the master. But, I can also create subgroup busses and route my signals through these, such as for DME stems. I can add a meter on EACH of these, as well as on the master. Since nothing is nested or compounded and I have real-time automation, I can quickly make any adjustment anywhere along the line to be compliant. For instance, adjusting the effects stem/submix bus as a group without messing with the dialogue.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 5:07:37 pm

Hi Bill,

When you select a clip with embedded audio, you can still see the "tracks" of audio in the inspector in the audio tab. When you show audio animation (looks like a baby version of what might be developed, no?), it looks the same whether the audio is embedded or expanded. So isn't that more of a visual presentation than any real impediment to growing the audio capability of FCP X? I'm asking not telling so please be patient.

Second question, how seamless is the workflow from FCP X to Logic X or Pro Tools?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 13, 2014 at 11:34:13 pm

[Craig Alan] "Second question, how seamless is the workflow from FCP X to Logic X or Pro Tools?"

I've tested this. Translation is pretty basic. You have to make sure dual mono tracks are set that way and not stereo before sending to LPX. Fade handles are lost. Picture reference from the FCPXML is complete nonsense. So make sure to export a proper picture reference QT separately, which you can then import and sync into LPX.

Best plan is to do little other than basic levels in FCP X and make sure the channel configs are right before sending to LPX. You can send a full mix or just tracks back to FCP X if you like. When you do that, mix levels and effects will be backed in.

FWIW - I got a better translation of an XML from Premiere Pro than I did an FCPXML from FCP X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 13, 2014 at 11:36:49 pm

I don't think there an "impediment" per se. I just think that the initial design concept with X (having both "embedded" audio attached to parent clips by default) as well as discrete external audio handled differently is a bit more complex than the standard Legacy timeline where your audio HAD to sit on fixed (Project) length tracks.

It can certainly be done. The issue is two-fold in my opinion. First, how high or low is the priority on the "to do" list for the FCP X team. And second is there an obvious "best way" to do this.

Everyone knows if X is going to continue to make inroads in pro suites, it needs better audio handling.

But nobody that I've heard about can seem to articulate what that is outside of simply adding in the old style mixing and mastering capabilities we've had for ever.

Maybe that's actually the best that human interface engineering can EVER do for audio. Computer versions of the virtual sliders and pots and buttons that make everyone feel warm and comfortable.

If for one would like to imagine that perhaps the team at Apple is thinking about the new metadata environment they've created and imagining what a user interface could be that might be "better."

Maybe that doesn't exist. And maybe we'll just get a virtual sound board like all the rest. If so, I'll sign and more on with my life.

But it sure would be cool if they're still thinking like they have from the beginning - and working on trying to go beyond just making a computerized version of what we've all had in the past.

THAT is the excitement of X.

To see what they come up with that's DIFFERENT - now just how long it takes them to come up with their version of the same thing we've always had.

The possibilities of something fresh and exciting - rather than the same recipe with just more or less of the same spices - is still there.

It's what makes being an FCP-X editor so much FUN.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 13, 2014 at 11:58:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "THAT is the excitement of X.
To see what they come up with that's DIFFERENT - now just how long it takes them to come up with their version of the same thing we've always had."


I don't think that was ever a design goal. I think the objective was always to make things easier and more intuitive. That gave us the color board sliders instead of color wheels. One can certainly argue it's a step backwards, but for others it meets the intuitive/faster criteria.

I think that's the challenge with adding a mixer to X. How to make it faster and more intuitive. I'm not sure that's possible given the corner they've painted themselves in with the design. Certainly roles could be used to create submix busses and a master bus. Or a manual grouping, like track stacks in Logic Pro X. I think they can add something, but would it ever be truly better than tracks and a mixer for the purposes of audio?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 5:10:09 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think the objective was always to make things easier and more intuitive. "

Spot on. And sometimes that's genius because the complexity was counterproductive to begin with and sometimes you are throwing out the baby. The color boards are ok but it certainly easier to understand if the complementary opposite color is in the opposing direction as the color you starting with. Below green should be red not the same color green. You are not just decreasing green saturation. It gets harder to imagine what's happening when you have to open up a 2-4 color correction windows to complete your correction as opposed to seeing all the color wheels/or rectangles you need in the same window. Sometimes what is needed to make it more "intuitive" is to educate people so they don't feel its over their head.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 1:40:43 pm

[Craig Alan] "The color boards are ok but it certainly easier to understand if the complementary opposite color is in the opposing direction as the color you starting with. Below green should be red not the same color green."

I think Apple's engineers would argue the + or - of a specific color is more intuitive than the color wheel model. Take a look at lab color timing, which is how the Dale Grahn Color iPad app is designed. + values are listed as RGB and - values are CMY, but the important part is that the buttons are designed as + or - and not color wheels.

http://www.dalegrahncolor.com

[Craig Alan] " It gets harder to imagine what's happening when you have to open up a 2-4 color correction windows to complete your correction as opposed to seeing all the color wheels/or rectangles you need in the same window."

This argument is one of UI design, not color wheels. I don't know of any app that lets you see all correction controls with 2-4 layers (or more) at once. Certainly not Color, SG, Resolve or Symphony. You have to step through secondaries, nodes, tracks or layers. If you mean the luma/sat/hue windows, then yes, it would be nice in one control window, but it is easy to tab through these or assign keyboard shortcuts.

As far as the ease of actual grading, I don't know. I do it all the time. I like both models, so either one works for me. When I look at the color swatch and see the puck in the - blue area, I realize I have reduced blue. I should add that not all color wheel-based models use the same color science. You can get vastly different results in different software when you place the apparently-same controls on their various color wheels in the same place.

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/grading-with-color-wheels/

If you prefer color wheels inside FCP X, then your best option is Hawaiki Color.

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/hawaiki-color/

http://tokyo-uk.com/fcpxeffects/products.html

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 5:37:55 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think Apple's engineers would argue the + or - of a specific color is more intuitive than the color wheel model. "

Both and not either or. + - would be more intuitive if lowering the puck in the green area just decreased green saturation. But your image turns redder. Therefore its more intuitive to use both - and the color space gradually shifting to red.

This whole make it more intuitive approach is for beginners that can used as you get more advanced. But since every other program uses the color wheel and for good reason, this simpler GUI should include the complimentary relationship between the colors.

In the two programs I have used for color correction - and I'm not on your level - Aperture and FCP 7 (3 way color corrector) - there was a window that contained way more than one adjustable color variable. I do not think it would be hard for FCP X to toggle on a color correction layout that gave you several of the components they are offering.

I think that could be the next huge step forward for FCP X - using an old concept of theirs - spaces. Not just little animation windows connected to the timeline or small sections of the inspector, but the entire screen dedicated to a particular operation of the program - be it color correction or audio editing. I know different topic.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 5:56:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think Apple's engineers would argue the + or - of a specific color is more intuitive than the color wheel model. "

Both and not either or. + - would be more intuitive if lowering the puck in the green area just decreased green saturation. But your image turns redder. Therefore its more intuitive to use both - and the color space gradually shifting to red.

This whole make it more intuitive approach is for beginners that can used as you get more advanced. But since every other program uses the color wheel and for good reason, this simpler GUI should include the complimentary relationship between the colors.

In the two programs I have used for color correction - and I'm not on your level - Aperture and FCP 7 (3 way color corrector) - there was a window that contained way more than one adjustable color variable. I do not think it would be hard for FCP X to toggle on a color correction layout that gave you several of the components they are offering.

I think that could be the next huge step forward for FCP X - using an old concept of theirs - spaces. Not just little animation windows connected to the timeline or small sections of the inspector, but the entire screen dedicated to a particular operation of the program - be it color correction or audio editing. I know different topic.

That said, I agree with everything you said and I am using X's color correction boards without much difficulty. Once you get used to moving the puck into the color you want to adjust it works pretty well. Once you bring up the scopes adjusting exposure works well and the consistency of always using highlights, shadows, mid-tones, global works well. What I'm expecting from FCP X and Apple, and maybe this is an unfair expectation, is that by learning the program you learn the basic concepts behind its use and in so doing are also more prepared to use a higher end program along side it.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:36:23 pm

[Craig Alan] "Both and not either or. + - would be more intuitive if lowering the puck in the green area just decreased green saturation. But your image turns redder. Therefore its more intuitive to use both - and the color space gradually shifting to red. "

I'm not sure that the way the puck in the "color" tab works, exactly equates to how the 3-way in FCP 7 works. I haven't really tested them side-by-side with the same media. It seems that FCP X works more like temp/tint sliders do in other tools. For example, open the scope and set it to a parade display so you see RGB. Now take the midrange puck and go all the way to the left so you are limited by the boundary of the swatch. Now move up and down. You'll notice the G,B waveforms move together and in an inverse direction to the travel of the R waveform.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 11:27:06 pm

Thanks Oliver,

I tried this and see the pattern.

And yes I see the same pattern (like two ships passing in the night) in Aperture.

In Aperture the temperature slide will form this pattern.

The tint seems to increase/decrease a color cast but only one of the ships moves.

So how does this differ from a hue correction on a traditional color wheel. You move from one color to another so it must decrease one as you increase the other, no?

It would be nice if there was a pop up that lets you know what exactly the program is doing as you make the adjustment.

What happens in the RGB scope when on a traditional color wheel you move away from red?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 11:54:22 pm

[Craig Alan] "So how does this differ from a hue correction on a traditional color wheel. You move from one color to another so it must decrease one as you increase the other, no?"

When you say hue correction, do you mean a color correction plug-in with a single wheel? This is just overall white balance with a hue shift.

The differences I see in various 3-ways is that some use the push-pull model we've been discussing in this thread. Others simply wash/tint the image with the color that you are increasing. IOW, more of one color without less of the color that's opposite.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 15, 2014 at 1:32:25 am

Right so in FCP X's board, one color is added as one is subtracted. If I had an active copy of FCP 7 I'd open up the RGB scope and see what that behavior is. What's ironic about this is the icon Apple uses for the board is a color wheel. I would think that means that it is doing the same thing as a traditional adjustment but a different UI.

Regardless when you go into the negative you definitely are adding the opposite color on the clip. Why not represent that on the board?

When X first came out and I played with it while still working in 7, I remember being able to use a color wheel in X, I think maybe as an option in one of the filters. But I can't seem to find that with a goole search or playing with the filters. I do see a third party one that does it, but I never got any third party apps for X.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 15, 2014 at 12:24:39 pm

"Regardless when you go into the negative you definitely are adding the opposite color on the clip. Why not represent that on the board?"

I think it's worth noting that color wheels are only one of many ways to change color balance. SpeedGrade and Resolve both also use RGB sliders that move in positive and negative directions. The results are the same as a color wheel, but obviously they recognize that sliders are more comfortable and more accurate for many operators. Think of camera paint control systems. RGB rotating pots. No color wheels there. While color wheels are popular, they are by no means the only way and might not even be the predominate way that color is adjusted. Maybe Apple was simply playing to the majority.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 15, 2014 at 4:02:51 pm

Thanks Oliver, I get that. And there is nothing sacred about using a color wheel. All I'm suggesting is adding the complementary opposite colors on the bottom half of the color board. The sliders have these and they are self-explanatory. More so than the board.

I'm going to have to look into davinci lite to further my understanding of color. When I reach a point of greater ease with FCP X, that will be my next step.

Of course whether its sound or color or motion control all of that would require round tripping which is another work flow issue to learn.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:06:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think Apple's engineers would argue the + or - of a specific color is more intuitive than the color wheel model. Take a look at lab color timing, which is how the Dale Grahn Color iPad app is designed. + values are listed as RGB and - values are CMY, but the important part is that the buttons are designed as + or - and not color wheels.

http://www.dalegrahncolor.com"


I'm sure Apple engineers think it is more intuitive (and it fits better into the limited UI of FCP X), but it's not like the color wheel is rocket science to use. Basically, if you want more red in an image you push the little indicator towards the red section of the wheel. If you want less red in an image you push the indicator away from the red section of the wheel (which just happens to be towards blue/green aka cyan). If someone wants to understand more about color theory (so they know why they are doing something rather than just how to do it) then the color wheel shows the relationship between colors that the color board does not.

I think the color board does more to deny users of useful information than it does to lower the barrier of entry for coloring a shot. I was taught the color wheel in grade school art classes and in the introduction to photography class I took in college. Basically, anytime I was in an educational setting that had to do with using colors out came the wheel so we could see the relationships between colors. Since it was a teaching tool I think that's why it was a no brainer to turn it into a UI convention in color grading applications.

With regards to the Grahn app, it seems based on primary and complimentary colors, and looks to be a bit of a throw back to the point system used in analog color timing (in the app description it says "Leaving behind color wheels, scopes and other digital conveniences..."). Also, given the limited screen real estate of an iPad having a +/- system could work out better, in terms of UI, than jabbing at a color wheel with a fat finger or having a herd of tiny sliders that need to be manipulated.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:13:52 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "With regards to the Grahn app, it seems based on primary and complimentary colors, and looks to be a bit of a throw back to the point system used in analog color timing (in the app description it says "Leaving behind color wheels, scopes and other digital conveniences...")."

Of course it is. That's really all there is to color correction. The concept of color wheels as a UI element was introduced with Avid Symphony, but it's not essential. And not all color wheels work the same. That's easiest to see in Looks, which offers two different 3-way tools - a 3-way and a Colorista tool. Both give you much different results. Or in Resolve, where you have log and 3-way wheels. Or the 3-way in Aperture versus the 3-way in FCP 7.

Any given primary color correction tool is not adding or removing color, it's shifting the balance. IOW, it's changing the cast of a segment of the video signal as delineated by luma ranges - another thing you have no control over in X. ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 15, 2014 at 4:14:16 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Of course it is. That's really all there is to color correction.

Agreed. The point I was trying to make was that you were drawing a comparison between the color board and the Grahn app because they both work on a +/- system but the Grahn app still maintains the relationship between primary and complimentary colors in the UI where as the color board does not. I'm sure you'd agree that being aware of the R/C, G/M, and B/Y relationship is fundamental if one wants to understand why the image is changing when the controls are operated.


The concept of color wheels as a UI element was introduced with Avid Symphony, but it's not essential. "


I didn't mean to imply that the color wheel is the only way to skin the cat, just that I think the color wheel is a better visual aid than the color board.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 15, 2014 at 4:21:27 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " I'm sure you'd agree that being aware of the R/C, G/M, and B/Y relationship is fundamental if one wants to understand why the image is changing when the controls are operated"

Sure. Understanding the fundamental concepts always improves the odds of success. ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 15, 2014 at 4:48:12 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I didn't mean to imply that the color wheel is the only way to skin the cat, just that I think the color wheel is a better visual aid than the color board."

For someone that doesn't understand the color wheel, they could easily open the color board, open a vector scope (which is essentially a color wheel) note the position (red starts at 0 degrees and ends at 360, which means red on both the left and right side are exactly the same) and then use the percentage to show what exactly the color board is doing. You can choose a percentage, and then move the degrees around form left to right and you'd see that the color goes right around the wheel in succession.

If the color board had the complementary color underneath it (instead of minus the "positive" color) it would be a flat color wheel. Even the puck highlights change to a big minus sign and show the complimentary color. I think it would be less intuitive to show the complementary color underneath, even though it is technically "accurate". What the Color Board shows is not inaccurate (non-naan).

While it is an "unconventional" UI, I don't think it's as far off from a color wheel as it looks at first glance. You are still plotting points around the wheel. You are hanging the map on the wall instead of spinning the globe. Either way, you can still show someone how to get from one ocean to the other, and how much easier it became once the panama canal was built. There, have some more crappy metaphors.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 16, 2014 at 7:44:47 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "For someone that doesn't understand the color wheel, they could easily open the color board, open a vector scope (which is essentially a color wheel) note the position (red starts at 0 degrees and ends at 360, which means red on both the left and right side are exactly the same) and then use the percentage to show what exactly the color board is doing. You can choose a percentage, and then move the degrees around form left to right and you'd see that the color goes right around the wheel in succession."

If someone can understand how a rectangular color board corresponds to a color wheel-like circular scope I think they can understand an actual color wheel. ;)

I think the color board adds an unnecessary layer of abstraction to something pretty simple and basic. Using the color board, if you think the image is too yellow overall you put the global puck on yellow and drag down into 'minus' yellow. If you go far enough the image will look very blue. Why does 'minus' yellow make the image blue one might ask? The color board UI doesn't correspond to the changes you see in the image.

Now to use a color wheel to perform the same task. The image has too much yellow so drag the indicator at the center of the wheel away from yellow (not too complicated IMO) and if you drag it far enough the image will look very blue. But on the color wheel dragging away from yellow means dragging towards blue so the yellow/blue relationship that user is seeing on screen is also represented in the GUI.

I feel like X's color board is a solution in search of a problem.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Audio Mix Window - hoping for even more FUN!
on Jul 14, 2014 at 1:36:48 pm

I don't think that grouped Roles are necessarily better in and of themselves as far as mixing is concerned.

The advantage conceivably is that it does the same thing as tracks without sacrificing the fluidity of the magnetic/connected clip/"trackless" timeline that's at the heart of FCP X.

Thinking of a Role as a LPX "Stack Track" is apt, hopefully with the ability to collapse or expand individual Roles to hide complexities when you don't need to. But at the same time all the elements within a Role maintain their individual clip connections to the Primary Storyline.

I think it would mean that we would need a new tab or alternate window where the Timeline Index sits, which would give you the same info as a traditional track would- Level, Pan, Bus, FX, Color coding, etc..

But I don't see any way around the idea that Audio Components would have to be exploded in this view, so that their Role information dictates it's position, rather than living in the grey space right below the video.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 12:37:40 pm

[James Ewart] "Is this a tired debate that is done and dusted?"

James,

This has been much discussed, if you're interested here is one recent thread (audio discussion starts with my first comment there):

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/68781

Franz.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 2:35:18 pm

Thanks Franz that's an interesting thread which I had not seen. For my personal needs I actually love how audio works but I do not get involved in complex mixes myself. Interesting always to read these different points of view.

Thought... Do you think Apple should be paying us for this? ; -)


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:05:07 pm

[James Ewart] "Thought... Do you think Apple should be paying us for this?"

James,

I do think there are lots of experienced and thoughtful views, perceptive speculations, and informed critiques in this forum, and I would think all that would be valuable to software designers ...

... if that is what you mean.

Franz.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:17:55 pm

I was being frivolous of course.

I for one get way more out of this place than I put in. But I try and contribute where I can.

cheers


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:34:46 pm

[James Ewart] "a traditional audio mix window anytime "

No way.

At best we can hope for is some kind of Roles Inspector type of thing. Where the Roles are "tracks" that can be mixed (volume, pan, fx, send). Although I continue to lobby for it, I have no real hope to see it.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:05:48 pm

Interesting thread.

As I think back to the hundreds of jobs I ran through FCP7, I cannot ever remember using the mixer in the system. My jobs were mostly spots and I cut with scratch tracks and temp music tracks. Upon client approval, the spot was sent to an audio house for VO record, music and mix. Back to me (or a finisher) for layback. Or I get a finished audio track to cut to. So to me, an audio mixer is way down on the list and the lack of one is not much of a consequence at all in X. I would rather see tighter integration with Motion and Resolve before an audio mixer. Guess it's all about ones particular workflow.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:40:39 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "My jobs were mostly spots and I cut with scratch tracks and temp music tracks. Upon client approval, the spot was sent to an audio house for VO record, music and mix. Back to me (or a finisher) for layback. Or I get a finished audio track to cut to"

Classic commercial workflow. OTOH, if you do long-form for the web (5-10 min.) - something that's a sweet spot for X - you end up doing everything yourself.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:18:47 pm

Just a thought...

With the strong "global" nature of the market for X, I suspect that one aspect that the software designers might be chewing over is less how to provide the complex "heavy mix" audio tools that the traditional motion picture sound designer requires - and more how to enable stuff such as multiple language substitution. Which is kinda in the Roles wheelhouse. The former helps one class of editor do a better job. The latter helps the project owner make more money - and therefore earn a better chance to get to do another project?

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:49:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "With the strong "global" nature of the market for X ..."

Bill,

This seems to have been a conversation I missed.

Franz.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12:49 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 15, 2014 at 11:51:35 am

To have one bit of software the accomplished both to a highly professional level is, perhaps, a little over ambitious (or greedy even)?

So where does FCPX stop before it hands over the audio baton?

Perhaps right where it is?

Maybe we should be content with a whole new NLE that takes us just so far before we hand over to Pro Tools, Sadie, Logic?

Maybe ditto Color?

Incidentally I do not know anybody (in my circle of colleagues and friends) who uses Logic for audio post here in the UK (Music composition yes). I guess people do but to what extent?

Do you people use Logic for audio post much?

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 15, 2014 at 12:28:51 pm

"Incidentally I do not know anybody (in my circle of colleagues and friends) who uses Logic for audio post here in the UK (Music composition yes). I guess people do but to what extent?
Do you people use Logic for audio post much?"


Generally the market here is dominated by Pro Tools. I do work with a couple of mixers who have shifted to Logic. When I see that, it's generally someone who also works with music composition. Nevertheless, LPX is a very strong audio post tool.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio Mix Window
on Jul 15, 2014 at 2:47:13 pm

[James Ewart] "Do you people use Logic for audio post much?"

James,

My anecdote comes from the single Logic user that I've handed off to over the past 15 years (all others used Pro Tools).

He was quite a devoted Logic user and runs a local user-group. He's started using Pro Tools in the past few years out of a need for compatibility and a concern for the direction that Apple is taking its software.

Franz.


Return to posts index

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