FORUMS: list search recent posts

Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Mark Snow
Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:15:01 am

Finally, my friends. We will switch from fcp7 to X at our shop. We do mostly Documentaries and some PR/Corporate videos.

The pain of missing tracks, the missing features (Keyframing) and the, quite frankly infantile language (Events?) and messy timeline (what are all those compulsory Spaghettis-Links for?) is for the moment outweighed by good will, hope for speed, easiness and curiosity.

I never thought it would come to this, but I promise, I will report back in a year or so…

Final Cut Pro 7, you will be missed! (except of course your "estimated" rendering time:)


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:40:43 am

Good luck, Mark. Many of us are using it successfully and enjoying the process. "We Love X!"

However, I feel your uneasiness. A lot of people here don't mind or fret over the garbled language -- Libraries, Projects, Events -- which work fine but perversely scramble the logic of editing. But it bothers me. Years of making movies tells me that I have a Project in which I try out different Sequences using clips from my Bins (or Reels, or Clip Collections).

It IS of concern because it possibly expresses Apple's overall intent to keep X skewed consumer and not so much pro. "Events" is a concept shared with the Instamatic-like iPhoto app, and makes you feel that Apple sees everyone as a Mom & Pop Home Movie Maker, who in turn see the stuff that comes out of their camera as an important "Event" in their lives: Baby's first step, Grandma's birthday, Vacation at the Shore etc.

Couple that with Tim Cook's scary pronouncement the other day, speaking about the new IBM enterprise partnership, and the fact that Tim personally does 80% of his work on an iPad: “There’s no reason why everyone shouldn’t be like that. Imagine enterprise apps being as simple as the consumer apps that we’ve all gotten used to. That’s the way it should be” …

Maybe there will be an enterprise version of FCPX that uses "Campaigns, Strategies and Resources."

Doug D


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 3:36:50 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "It IS of concern because it possibly expresses Apple's overall intent to keep X skewed consumer and not so much pro. "Events" is a concept shared with the Instamatic-like iPhoto app, and makes you feel that Apple sees everyone as a Mom & Pop Home Movie Maker, who in turn see the stuff that comes out of their camera as an important "Event" in their lives: Baby's first step, Grandma's birthday, Vacation at the Shore etc."

Have you played with Resolve? I was playing with the transform tools. I wanted to move the x position and the y positions. I couldn't find them anywhere! Nothing labeled position or X or Y! Oh, wait, there's "PAN" and "TILT." WTF? We can't all agree on x and y position? There's not even a virtual camera involved and they gotta call it pan and tilt, which is of course completely inaccurate in a 2D world anyway. Might as well call it scroll and crawl.


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 6:13:07 pm

[Bret Williams] "Nothing labeled position or X or Y! Oh, wait, there's "PAN" and "TILT." WTF? We can't all agree on x and y position? There's not even a virtual camera involved and they gotta call it pan and tilt, which is of course completely inaccurate in a 2D world anyway. Might as well call it scroll and crawl."

lol - okay, I thought I was the only one bothered by that... technically, they should call it dolly(L/R) and crane(up/down), if they want to use the nomenclature of camera movement... but I agree, it makes a LOT more sense to use 2D coordinates than virtual camera moves (and the wrong ones at that).

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 6:19:45 pm

let's add z position as a push, and L/R would of course be "slider" not dolly. Can we get a jib position?

But really, in 20 years I've never see anything but XYZ. Suddenly we have tilt and pan.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 6:35:32 pm

[Bret Williams] "let's add z position as a push, and L/R would of course be "slider" not dolly. Can we get a jib position?

But really, in 20 years I've never see anything but XYZ. Suddenly we have tilt and pan."


I must be old then, in my day, we called L/R movements dolly, truck or crab... you kids and your fancy new sliders. :-) I tell you, it all went down hill when filmmakers stared caring about "crop factor". :-P

Seriously though, I agree with you about the x,y thing... now, if we could just get the 3D folks to agree as well (some are "y up", some are "z up"). :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:24:08 pm

We call it dolly in and out, zoom in and out, pan left or right, truck/track left or right. And yes tilt up and down. Pedestal up and down.
With a transform, I can more or less create the look of panning and tilting but not so much trucking or pedestal.
And a lot depends on how tight the original shot was. The angle of lens to any given part of the image is not going to change.

So I suppose I follow their choice of camera terms. But it's less accurate than the standard was.

I think it's counterproductive to rename industry standard terms unless they truly no longer apply. You can certainly use a transform tool to simulate panning and tilting but you can also do many other things with the same tool set. What u can't do is change the camera's 3D relationship to the subject. Seems like every product is required to be different innovative paradigm shifting to be marketable.
Unless the interface was using a virtual camera to transform the shots, it is less than helpful to rename the positioning on what is a virtual grid/graph. And if you were using a virtual camera you'd be shooting a 2 D image with a 2D tool.
That might be a fun way to remake the tool's interface. And then I could see the purpose of renaming it. But it would not be able to create everything that a transform tool can do.

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

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 7:38:10 pm

Haha, I am looking forward to using Resolve 11, and I know RippleTraining is at work on a tutorial, anticipating its popularity. Thanks for the warning! This is typical, right? Even though there is no virtual camera that could conceivably, in 3D mode, perform a pan and tilt, someone has the half-baked idea, "Hey, in movies they call it Pan and Tilt, let's do that!"

In writing the first lesson you learn is "parallel structure:" Like goes with like, to make things easy to follow. But in UI there are apparently no "grammatical" syntax, structural rules. So you get a mix of graphics app conventions, NLE features and movie language.

My observation of the traditional NLE as a wildly mixed-metaphor is: The Timeline is based on physical film editing, where you ran tracks of film and mag stock (audio) through a synchronizer while screening, selecting, editing. (Moviolas worked this way, and even flatbeds like the Steenbeck -- although there, your tracks are turned on their sides). You could unlock the sync block and "slide" tracks out of sync ... which is what you do when you shuffle clips around on NLE tracks. But the Source & Record windows (as Avid originally called them) are straight out of another era altogether, tape editing, in which you played a Source deck and watched on a Source Monitor, then dubbed your desired shots -- via timecode -- onto a Record deck, the result playing back on a Record Monitor. And finally, the "Browser/Bins" area leaps forward to yet another era, and is basically a Mac Finder or Windows desktop metaphor, with files hierarchal-organized into folders. The NLE mixed metaphor spans about 80 years of user interfaces!

With FCPX, Resolve, advances in metadata ... we have a chance to become a bit more integrated and consistent in our interface rules and language. Maybe it will become important someday.

Doug D


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 8:33:57 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "It IS of concern because it possibly expresses Apple's overall intent to keep X skewed consumer and not so much pro. "Events" is a concept shared with the Instamatic-like iPhoto app, and makes you feel that Apple sees everyone as a Mom & Pop Home Movie Maker, who in turn see the stuff that comes out of their camera as an important "Event" in their lives: Baby's first step, Grandma's birthday, Vacation at the Shore etc."

You're reading too much into this, I think. FCP X has "projects" in "events" in "libraries." While I agree this terminology is a little odd for a pro video app, it doesn't actually map to consumer taxonomy any better. When have consumers ever talked about keeping their events in libraries?

"Events" is the only one of these terms that even slightly implies the sort of orientation you're suggesting, and even then, not really. It's an exceedingly vague term. Yes, a birthday party is an "event," but so is a feature film shoot. The sun exploding would be an "event." The word covers a lot of territory.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 10:43:24 pm

[Chris Kenny] "While I agree this terminology is a little odd for a pro video app, it doesn't actually map to consumer taxonomy any better."

Well put. A better approach for the integration of consumer and professional applications (which is the direction the industry is going) - is to make the language of professionals accessible and consistent. The large majority of FCP 1-7 copies were in the hands of non-pros. Or prosumers.

I own a professional reciprocating saw. Does not make me a contractor. But I can get a lot more done with it than the piece of crap saw I bought last time. Doesn't hurt that it came with simple illustrations showing me where to place the blade in relation to the wood or pipe I want to cut. Doesn't hurt that they clearly let you know what blade is used for what material.

Lots of people can read and write due to democratic educational systems. But that does not mean that there are no professional writers. It does mean that many professional writers write stuff that is geared toward readers who are not on a high level of sophistication. And this applies to most feature films and broadcast TV shows as well.

If something works for all levels of users, then its foundation, its fundamentals are really solid. That's a good thing. If the name of something is truly instructive/symbolic of its use then leave it alone. If it's not, then change it when you have name that is.

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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 12:00:42 pm

Don't worry so much about the switch. Once you get into, you will find the power of FCPX that makes it much faster and more effective than FCP7.

Suggestions would be to get Ripple Training and also not try to make your X work like FCP7. I don't even think in terms of tracks anymore and when I do edit on FCP7, PP or MC, tracks seem to get in the way.

Good luck and have fun!

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


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 1:28:22 pm

[Mark Snow] "The pain of missing tracks, the missing features (Keyframing) and the, quite frankly infantile language (Events?) and messy timeline (what are all those compulsory Spaghettis-Links for?) is for the moment outweighed by good will, hope for speed, easiness and curiosity."

Hopefully, you'll quickly find you like the new way of timeline organization. I personally am much faster with the FCP X timeline than I ever was using tracks (I've been editing for 20 years). And I do similar kind of projects to what you do. As far as I am concerned, there simply is no better documentary editor than FCP X.

Sometimes I wonder if those who can't handle the FCP X timeline have difficulty learning new things. Or they're just impatient. It really was no problem for me.



Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 3:03:13 pm
Last Edited By Herb Sevush on Jul 18, 2014 at 4:15:08 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I wonder if those who can't handle the FCP X timeline have difficulty learning new things. Or they're just impatient"

Or perhaps you just might want to consider if, and this is purely conjecture of course, they might have (emphasis on might) a somewhat different editing style than yours, different editing priorities you might say; one that isn't as conducive to the X paradigm. Of course your probably right, they're probably impatient, learning disabled neanderthals, but what the hell, why not give some of them the benefit of the doubt.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 3:57:48 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Sometimes I wonder if those who can't handle the FCP X timeline have difficulty learning new things. Or they're just impatient. It really was no problem for me.
"


Yes, so many of the editors that I know that started cutting on physical film and then moved to a linear bay and then moved to an NLE like Avid and then moved to FCP Legend and are now moving on again lack the proper temperament and mental faculties to learn new things.

The 'If you don't like X you must be a dumb dinosaur' tropes need to die.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 1:37:22 am

[Andrew Kimery] "
The 'If you don't like X you must be a dumb dinosaur' tropes need to die."


My apologies. I didn't mean to offend. It was a flippant remark and I did not intend to have it mean anyone's a "dinosaur."

The point I wanted to make was that anyone can learn to work with the X timeline efficiently if they want to.



Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 3:54:15 am

[Brett Sherman] "My apologies. I didn't mean to offend. It was a flippant remark and I did not intend to have it mean anyone's a "dinosaur."

No sweat. Those types of comments have become a pet peeve for me so I'm too quick to jump on them at times.


The point I wanted to make was that anyone can learn to work with the X timeline efficiently if they want to."


I'm sure that everyone could learn to use X, but X isn't the best tool for everyone and every situation so learning it might not always be the best way to go. One man's floor is another man's ceiling as they say. For me, as a freelance editor in LA, learning X wouldn't benefit me much because X is in very low demand out here (and that's putting it nicely). My professional development time is better spent on software like Avid, AE, PS, Resolve and even PPro because that knowledge will help me land gigs.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 2:04:24 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "For me, as a freelance editor in LA, learning X wouldn't benefit me much because X is in very low demand out here (and that's putting it nicely)."

Certainly I understand why some choose not to use FCP X. I fully realize there are situations where a tracked timeline works better. And as a freelancer you don't have the choice of what software to use regardless of what may be the best tool for the job. When I hire editors (rarely) I only hire ones who can edit in FCP X to maintain institutional consistency.

On the flip side, I also believe there is still a bias against FCP X that has not much to do with reality. No, not everyone, but it's definitely there. It's been a long road to get even minimal begrudging respect for FCP X - even people questioning our claims of working more efficiently. So I will admit to being overly sensitive also.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 1:03:26 am

[Brett Sherman] "On the flip side, I also believe there is still a bias against FCP X that has not much to do with reality. No, not everyone, but it's definitely there. It's been a long road to get even minimal begrudging respect for FCP X - even people questioning our claims of working more efficiently. So I will admit to being overly sensitive also."

I think there is going to continue to be bias against X until it's built up a enough of a track record on big projects that it's undeniable that X can get the job done as well as, if not better than, more established NLEs. X has only been out for three years and is still in the process of earning its stripes.

That's just the way it seems to go. NLEs in general didn't replace linear bays and flatbed editors overnight. Avid spent many years becoming the de facto NLE for large productions. FCP Legend wasn't taken seriously for big productions in LA until around version 6 (2007) and poor Premiere spent about 20 years in the 'only good for weddings/corporate videos' dog house before finally finding some traction with PPro 6 (2012). Sony Vegas has been a front runner on a lot of features (robust audio editing, 'open' timelines, HD and 4K support, etc.,) but it never gets mentioned in the same breath as Avid MC or FCP (or even PPro).

When Apple hit the reset button to make X they didn't just scrap the old FCP, they also scrapped the inroads the old FCP made in the industry. IMO if Apple had released FCP 8 they would be displacing Avid more than ever right now and PPro would still be considered an also ran.

Oh, and the name calling never seems to go away. When I primarily used Premiere (old Premiere, not PPro) I caught flak from FCP users. When I primarily used FCP I caught flak from Avid users. When I primarily used Avid I caught flak from X users. Currently I'm primarily using PPro and I'm getting flak from both Avid users and X users. Some Resolve fanboys are already getting uppity over the possibility that Resolve may become a fully featured editor at some undetermined point in the future so I'd be for the ready for poo-flinging to start coming from that direction too. ;)


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 5:25:37 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "built up a enough of a track record"

There are no tracks! ;)

I know LA editors using X, but they keep it on the down-low.

Avid's IT controls are pretty much beautiful, and that's a big deal. Events, Project, Libraries are close. I would be curious the IT permissions (read/write) on X's "stuff," whereas Avids pretty much guarantee picture does cannot get leaked before release.

And really that brings up another question about LA freelancing: to what extent are you trusted with material that waits for release? For example the latest cut from the Bachelorette or American Idol and so on. What controls are used so that nothing gets leaked?

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 7:23:14 pm

[Richard Herd] "Avid's IT controls are pretty much beautiful, and that's a big deal. Events, Project, Libraries are close. I would be curious the IT permissions (read/write) on X's "stuff," whereas Avids pretty much guarantee picture does cannot get leaked before release.

And really that brings up another question about LA freelancing: to what extent are you trusted with material that waits for release? For example the latest cut from the Bachelorette or American Idol and so on. What controls are used so that nothing gets leaked?
"


I'm not sure I follow your question. While Avid + ISIS does allow you to administer R/W access to users someone could still export the footage they had Read access to and upload it if they wanted to (or just record it with their phone).

For people working on a show, say American Idol to keep that example going, everyone signs NDAs but for the most part I think editors just don't want to be a dicks and leak footage. Plus the schedules are so insane that taking the time to leak something (and trying to do it in a way that you won't get caught) just sounds too exhausting.

Years ago I worked at places that did BTS and EPKs for major films and for those there is certainly a layer of security because the footage is being sent out of house by the studio. Many times false titles are used and the low quality footage for the rough cuts has a number of burn-ins all over the image including the recipients name so that if it leaks it's very obvious where it came from. For AAA titles the tapes were kept in a locked case inside a locked room inside the media vault (which itself was locked) and one time our offline copy of the footage was delivered on VHS and had been turned black and white. Another time the tapes weren't allowed to stay on site so each morning the studio would messenger over the tapes and each evening the tapes would get messengered back.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 7:34:39 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "for major films and for those there is certainly a layer of security because the footage is being sent out of house by the studio. Many times false titles are used and the low quality footage for the rough cuts has a number of burn-ins all over the image including the recipients name so that if it leaks it's very obvious where it came from."

That's the case for what we do. Even if the pix are decent resolution, they're defaced with traceable burn-ins and other tricks. Also, the studios have very stringent security requirements, inspect the facilities, require NDA's etc. The TSA are pikers compared to these folks. lol

Mostly it's the desire to remain employable that keeps people from leaking stuff. :-) None of the leaks I've heard of have come from editors. Like anything secret, leaks happen lower on the food chain... dub rooms etc...

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

~ 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: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 4:35:13 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Sometimes I wonder if those who can't handle the FCP X timeline have difficulty learning new things. Or they're just impatient. It really was no problem for me."

Brett,

This doesn't really add to the conversation.

If you are genuinely interested in why some don't want to use X, ask. You'll get answers.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 7:13:25 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Sometimes I wonder if those who can't handle the FCP X timeline have difficulty learning new things. Or they're just impatient. It really was no problem for me."

Some of us have no choice as to the NLE we use. The company has Avids, so we use Avid. Plus the "old way" works, and works well....why change? For change sake? Apple reinvented something that, IMHO, didn't need to be reinvented. BUT, it turns out many MANY people like this reinvention...so I'm cool with it. I just don't use it.

I know many people like and swear by FCX...love the way it is laid out. Fine...dandy, it works for them. Glad that they have that option. Others like things done another way...so for that we have alternate choices...Avid, Premiere Pro, Edius. It's good to have options.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 7:25:55 pm

[Shane Ross] "I know many people like and swear by FCX...love the way it is laid out. Fine...dandy, it works for them. Glad that they have that option. Others like things done another way...so for that we have alternate choices...Avid, Premiere Pro, Edius. It's good to have options.
"


It is good to have options, and when X dropped many X users were like, 'What's wrong with options? If you don't like how X does things then use another NLE that better suits your style/needs'. Somewhere along the way though that attitude morphed from 'having choices is good' to 'having choices is good, but if you don't choose FCP X you're an idiot'.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:02:53 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "It is good to have options, and when X dropped many X users were like, 'What's wrong with options? If you don't like how X does things then use another NLE that better suits your style/needs'. Somewhere along the way though that attitude morphed from 'having choices is good' to 'having choices is good, but if you don't choose FCP X you're an idiot'."

I don't think that's a fair assessment of "many" X users. Some for sure though and, as someone who prefers X over the other NLE's (that I actually own/rent and use) I find that attitude just as annoying as you do. Just saying.

I gotta say though... I've been working in FCP 7 for a couple weeks and while it's comfortable as an old shoe, I find myself cursing at it daily. Hourly... OK, every time I need to move a clip between tracks, or want to quickly see what the base layer of a composite is, or want to see scrub a single clip in the timeline, or see what's in my clip beyond the cut point without leaving the timeline, or or or...

The trackless bit of X is not it's only differentiation from other systems by a long shot. I do this 8-10 hrs a day every day of the week, and X is way more pleasant to cut in.

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:12:58 pm

[Charlie Austin] "The trackless bit of X is not it's only differentiation from other systems by a long shot. I do this 8-10 hrs a day every day of the week, and X is way more pleasant to cut in."

I completely agree about the pleasure of cutting in X - though I'd have to say that every NLE has its "pleasure spot", as it were, and they're all different.

(And that means, believe it or not, that there are even some things I really enjoy about Media Composer that aren't as well implemented elsewhere - though I can't believe I just said that.)

The problem for me is that there are still two or three basic editing functions that are missing from X that mean I can't really commit to using it because my job doesn't allow me the time to juggle the workarounds.

(I don't think that makes me a Luddite, or lazy, or stupid - though I may be all of the above and more.)

As to whether we will ever see these functions implemented, I'm starting to become doubtful.

Maybe there are more editors like me who are missing the, to them, essential functions that mean X is just not a plausible option at this point.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:22:59 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "As to whether we will ever see these functions implemented, I'm starting to become doubtful."

I've got actual playhead match replace on my short list of WTF? issues. Send to Motion/open in editor is another, but I don't miss it all that much.

What's on your list? I think a list of gripes from people who actually use FCP X would be interesting. :-)

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:54:16 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I've got actual playhead match replace on my short list of WTF? issues. Send to Motion/open in editor is another, but I don't miss it all that much. "

It's interesting what each of us thinks if important and the other doesn't.

I know Send to Motion is high on a lot of users' lists, and you'd think that as Motion's Number One Fan, I would be demanding this as well, but it's something I can pretty comfortably live without.

Genuine Replace Edit and Gang Sync are the two things I genuinely can't do without.

Which is a completely different list from Things I Would Like To See.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 5:31:47 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Gang Sync are the two things"

Please discuss Gang Sync and how you use it...maybe it's a question more for art of the edit forum, and not this one.

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 6:13:53 pm

[Richard Herd] "Please discuss Gang Sync and how you use it...maybe it's a question more for art of the edit forum, and not this one."

You will be disappointed if you wanted to hear about a new creative editing technique from me here.

The reason I need it is for the very mundane task of eye-matching (which also relates to my need for genuine replace edit).

(Eye-matching is required when you're trying to replace one set of source shots with another (usually of higher quality than the original) and you can't do it with matching (or even offset) timecode. It's very common in the VFX world and it's a pretty hefty job if you have to do it. I sometimes have to do VFX replacement but more often it's swapping out one version of a feature film for another when cutting trailers and promos - Charlie Austin can testify to having to do this job as well and it's far less occasional than one would like, but it has to be done. On top of that, it very often needs to be done in a screaming rush with a monstrous deadline breathing down your neck, so it's no fun in any way and it really doesn't allow for workarounds. You need the tools you need and that's that.)

If you're trying to eye match a scene where there is very little movement it's a huge help to be able to lock the source and the timeline together using Gang Sync and step back and forwards to make sure the sync point you think you've found is indeed the correct one.

Not very glamorous, I know, but there you have it.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 6:28:13 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 21, 2014 at 6:29:10 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Charlie Austin can testify "

... only if I'm subpoenaed! (but um... yes, I agree.)



[Simon Ubsdell] "If you're trying to eye match a scene where there is very little movement it's a huge help to be able to lock the source and the timeline together using Gang Sync and step back and forwards to make sure the sync point you think you've found is indeed the correct one."

Actually, I find the single viewer quite handy for this. Find a frame and toggle the view using CMD-1&2. Easier than 2 side by side views. But unless it's the first or last frame of the target clip, you then get to curse X for not having match frame replace and do the workaround dance. So close.... :-/

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 6:59:50 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Actually, I find the single viewer quite handy for this. Find a frame and toggle the view using CMD-1&2. Easier than 2 side by side views."

I see what you're saying and that's a handy tip, but I often find it's a case of, "yes, that looks like a match on that frame, but what's it like if I step back through the shot, are we still in sync?" And often enough it's not quite as in sync as you'd have hoped ...

And that's where not having Gang Sync makes it awkward because you don't have that instant feedback as to whether the whole shot is in fact in sync or whether you've messed up with your first instinct.

But of course you doubtless never mess up and it's just me ...

;-)

(I ought to be better at it - when I started out I was still eye-matching on film.)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 7:05:17 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "And often enough it's not quite as in sync as you'd have hoped ..."

For sure, gang sync in some form needs to return, but the A/B viewer switching is kinda nice... But again, no match frame replace often negates it's utility...

[Simon Ubsdell] "But of course you doubtless never mess up and it's just me ...
"


Well, yes. Everything I do is perfect. That's what all my cuts finish on version 1.
-please note... extreme sarcasm is contained in the preceding text-

;-)

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

~ 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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 7:12:29 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Actually, I find the single viewer quite handy for this. Find a frame and toggle the view using CMD-1&2. Easier than 2 side by side views. But unless it's the first or last frame of the target clip, you then get to curse X for not having match frame replace and do the workaround dance. So close.... :-/"

Charlie, do you not work with an external monitor? On previous gigs I've done a lot of shot replacement (show was mostly stock footage) and while I used the gang sync in Avid I also toggled source/record to A/B on the external monitor for shots that were had to tell side by side (like wide shots of oceans).


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 7:23:50 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Charlie, do you not work with an external monitor? "

Not when I'm cutting. Usually turn it on for client review etc. More a function of how my bay is set up than anything else. I do like the single viewer in X though. Even though it exists now I never use the source viewer, and kinda wish I had single viewer functionality in other NLE's... That's the fun of cutting in multiple systems... no matter which one I'm on I always miss one or more features from another.

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

~ 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: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 8:55:48 pm

[Charlie Austin] "That's the fun of cutting in multiple systems... no matter which one I'm on I always miss one or more features from another"

Yep.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 8:04:20 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "On previous gigs I've done a lot of shot replacement (show was mostly stock footage) and while I used the gang sync in Avid I also toggled source/record to A/B on the external monitor for shots that were had to tell side by side (like wide shots of oceans)."

For various reasons, some of which I can't quite put my finger on, this job seems to be far smoother to do in Media Composer than anything else. The tools always seem to be just there where you need them ... and MC is definitely not my favourite NLE generally.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:33:40 pm

Can you name the missing functions? It's probably been talked to death but since we just had a new update I'm curious what for u is still missing.

I would really like to see them add custom layouts. Spend too. Much time opening and closing windows and resizing them.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:45:39 pm

[Craig Alan] "Can you name the missing functions?"

fcpx.tv has a pretty big list, though I don't agree with all of 'em. Many of them are "would be nice" kinds of things. Also, the fact that "scrolling timeline" is his number one issue makes me take the rest less seriously. I can't think of a future I would want less. ;-)

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:56:25 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Also, the fact that "scrolling timeline" is his number one issue makes me take the rest less seriously. I can't think of a future I would want less. ;-)"

Couldn't agree more.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:50:28 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:55:04 pm

[Craig Alan] "Can you name the missing functions?"

1) Replace Edit - in the conventional sense, not the feature Apple cheekily call Replace Edit which is fun but not what I'm talking about here.

2) Gang Sync.

3) Multiple simultaneous timecode displays (optional).

Trivial things to countless other users but essential to virtually every editing job that I undertake, and hence non-negotiable must-haves.

For me.

Yes, there are countless other cosmetic improvements that we might all like to see, but when a missing feature doesn't actually allow you to do your job, it's a pretty big deal.

But sorry, I'm boring everyone who has heard me ask for these things so many times before.

And, to reiterate, in case this is taken the wrong way, I do very much enjoy cutting in FCP X on the few occasions when I don't absolutely need the above features.

As things stand, though, I'd happily swap every single last ground-breaking media management feature, if I could only get my hands on those paltry editing options.

I do suspect there are some basic architectural issues which stand in the way of these being implemented, but I could be completely wrong.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 8:56:36 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Trivial things to countless other users but essential to virtually every editing job that I undertake, and hence non-negotiable must-haves. For me."

The most enlightening thing about this forum is the exposure to so many widely varied workflows. Features that are deal breakers for me are less than meaningless to to so many others. The depth of most NLE software is quite amazing - and it's getting deeper, not simpler, as time passes.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:04:46 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The depth of most NLE software is quite amazing - and it's getting deeper, not simpler, as time passes."

Indeed. But here FCP X seems to be the exception, at least from an editing point of view. We see an increasingly complex media management system (which is great for countless users, but virtually meaningless to me), but advances in the editing toolset seem to have stalled quite dramatically.

Maybe we'll see amazing new things in the next release.

Or the one after that.

Or the one that one that comes with the OS that comes after Yosemite.

Really soon, in other words.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:17:47 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:21:17 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "but advances in the editing toolset seem to have stalled quite dramatically.
"


I wouldn't say "dramatically", but yeah... new/improved/reimplemented features haven't happened as quickly as they were initially. The guts of the app and fcpxml etc have improved a ton, but the toolset needs some love. The fact that this is still in the code, archaic names and all:

-key- ReplaceWithSelectedMediaAtPlayhead -/key-
- string-Replace the selected Sequence clip with the selected Organizer clip aligned to their Playhead locations -/string-


gives me (false?) hope that one glaringly missing feature will one day reappear. That's the only thing that really makes me shake my head. Lot's of "like to haves", but this one is a biggie. Doesn't negate the things I now find indispensable, but still. And I think your other 2 are quite reasonable as well. Anyone from Apple lurking here? C'mon... pretty please? :-)

[Simon Ubsdell] " ...OS that comes after Yosemite."
I bet FCP X blends quite nicely with Dark Mode. :-)

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:22:55 pm

[Charlie Austin] "The fact that this is still in the code, archaic names and all:

-key- ReplaceWithSelectedMediaAtPlayhead -/key-
- string-Replace the selected Sequence clip with the selected Organizer clip aligned to their Playhead locations -/string-

gives me (false?) hope that the one glaringly missing feature will one day reappear."


As I say, I do think there are structural problems with implementing it and it's not just a simple case of "turning it on".

If we think about the way that X handles "time", then I think it's possible to speculate about the potential difficulties.

If it were as easy as flipping the ON switch, I suspect they'd have done it by now.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:58:12 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I think it's possible to speculate about the potential difficulties.

If it were as easy as flipping the ON switch, I suspect they'd have done it by now."


Yep.

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

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 5:11:32 am

I suspect there's some reasoning in there as to why you can't enter a compound clip (or exit one) with the playhead synced to the position it was in the main sequence. Or why you can't match frame a clip to the keyword collection it came from. Something just ain't right with the internal code design that doesn't easily allow such functions. And the number or true trimming (which is basically "editing") features that are missing is getting ridiculous. And STILL the drop shadow undo is the biggest joke. How much memory does this undo take up? I think I've found the memory leak in this app! Try for yourself. Add a drop shadow. Highlight the effect and drag the drop shadow all over the place. Don't release the mouse, just drag it around for a few minutes like you're trying to decide the best place to put it.

Now press undo. Enjoy the show.

Then press redo!


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 8:48:31 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 20, 2014 at 9:18:37 am

[Bret Williams] "I suspect there's some reasoning in there as to why you can't enter a compound clip (or exit one) with the playhead synced to the position it was in the main sequence."

What NLE can you do that in? I don't recall being able to do that with nested clips in FCP 7, maybe MC?

[Bret Williams] "Or why you can't match frame a clip to the keyword collection it came from."

A little annoying at times, but it does match back to the master like everything else right? Might be nice if key worded ranges behaved like sub clips I guess...

[Bret Williams] "And the number or true trimming (which is basically "editing") features that are missing"

Other than the match frame replace and maybe ability to select clips, or multiple edit points/clip edges vertically via the KB… What?

[Bret Williams] "Don't release the mouse, just drag it around for a few minutes like you're trying to decide the best place to put it."

A few minutes? Really? I'll check it out, but I believe you. Honestly though, why would you do that. Seconds maybe, but minutes?

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

~ 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: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 21, 2014 at 5:35:58 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I do think there are structural problems with implementing it"

Hmm. Disagree a bit. You'd think a separate project and event would make the ganging sync easier. Granted, I rarely use it. Which is why I'm hoping to learn new technique and style of editing from you :)


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 10:13:19 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Or the one that one that comes with the OS that comes after Yosemite."

That one's called Glacier I think.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 10:14:45 pm

[Tim Wilson] "That one's called Glacier I think."

There was me thinking it would be called Disneyland.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 9:10:47 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The most enlightening thing about this forum is the exposure to so many widely varied workflows. Features that are deal breakers for me are less than meaningless to to so many others. The depth of most NLE software is quite amazing - and it's getting deeper, not simpler, as time passes.

Herb Sevush"


Herb NAILS this.

It's a nice description of my entire experience here for the past nearly 4 years.

And every time I see someone write about how they "can't" use something because of how it works, it's easy for me to transform that into feeling that they just don't "want" to use it, because so many others who you would think would have precisely the same needs DO use it.

But the truth is probably that an editors "needs" are not confined to keystroke combinations or timeline structures. They're also about how they've learned to think about editing. And the way they are forced to edit based on THIS project or circumstance. And we all think about this stuff somewhat differently.

Nice post, Herb.

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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 10:05:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "But the truth is probably that an editors "needs" are not confined to keystroke combinations or timeline structures. They're also about how they've learned to think about editing. And the way they are forced to edit based on THIS project or circumstance. And we all think about this stuff somewhat differently. "

There are quirks in how we all like to edit.

And then there are tools that some of us actually do really need in order to carry out certain clearly defined and frequently recurring tasks.

I think you are perhaps eliding the two considerations here as though they are part of the same continuum.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 10:08:40 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I think you are perhaps eliding the two considerations here as though they are part of the same continuum."

Eschew obfuscation. :-)

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 10:12:18 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Jul 19, 2014 at 10:17:11 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Eschew obfuscation. :-)"

Oh, right - you mean talk proper?

Got you.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 6:09:22 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "And then there are tools that some of us actually do really need in order to carry out certain clearly defined and frequently recurring tasks.

I think you are perhaps eliding the two considerations here as though they are part of the same continuum.
"


The key for for me above is your proper use of the phrase "some of us."

I freely admit that SOME editors need things that X does not provide. I've actually ALWAYS acknowledged that.

Those who face things that X currently doesn't have that they need, can choose to switch, hang in and wait, or make do.

Same as always, Simon.

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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 9:42:10 am

[Bill Davis] "I freely admit that SOME editors need things that X does not provide. I've actually ALWAYS acknowledged that."

Fair enough - sorry to have misrepresented what you were saying. We don't disagree.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:48:44 pm

Yes I knew you had most likely covered it, but in terms of this thread I think it was worth reviewing. So thanks. FYI: I was not asking to debate but just wanted to understand.

[Simon Ubsdell] "1) Replace Edit - in the conventional sense, not the feature Apple cheekily call Replace Edit which is fun but not what I'm talking about here."

1. Can you help me out here. What exact replace edit? FCP X can replace from the In point of both, the out point of both, the entire clip for clip or retimed like fit to fill. What can't it do? Again, not to debate. I'm not a pro editor.

[Simon Ubsdell] "2) Gang Sync."
2. The multicam editor I assume won't cover your need?

[Simon Ubsdell] "3) Multiple simultaneous timecode displays (optional)."
3. Have you looked at all the plug-ins that add time code to 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

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 10:54:50 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 18, 2014 at 10:59:16 pm

[Craig Alan] "Can you help me out here. What exact replace edit? FCP X can replace from the In point of both, the out point of both, the entire clip for clip or retimed like fit to fill. What can't it do?"

park the playhead on frame of a clip in the project, find the matching frame in a browser clip and park the playhead on it, replace the project clip with the source clip *at the playhead* and fill the space on either side of the playhead. Every major NLE can do it.

[Craig Alan] "2. The multicam editor I assume won't cover your need? "
Sort of, not really. it's a kludge as generally you're editing one sequence as you play them both side by side to compare. Not so easy/impossible with a multicam clip. You can also make a CC of CUT A, and line it up in CUT B's project and resize it to 25% or something. A kludge.

[Craig Alan] "3. Have you looked at all the plug-ins that add time code to X?"

Not what some folks need. They'd like something like this:



X is awesome, but there are still some things that need either implementation, or re-imagination. As long as it works I don't care if they call match frame replace "Magic Morph" if it does the job. And I hope we don't have to wait for OS X Magic Mountain® for it to happen:-)

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

~ 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

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 1:44:57 am

[Charlie Austin] "park the playhead on frame of a clip in the project, find the matching frame in a browser clip and park the playhead on it, replace the project clip with the source clip *at the playhead* and fill the space on either side of the playhead. Every major NLE can do it."

Thank you. Just so I know I get it:

Are we talking about a match frame?

If so does this do it?

Place playhead in the timeline on the frame to match
select the clip to be replaced.
right click and select 'reveal in browser'.
This will show the clip or the matching range of the original clip in the browser
with a line that matches the playhead location in the timeline.
in the timeline select the range to be replaced and press D
the selected range in the browser replaces the clip/range set in the timeline.

Or are we talking about any frame in any clip in the browser?

If so I assume it would be to match a certain beat like an explosion or crossing the finish line??

In that case it would take several steps in X.

Hope this is clear.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 1:48:31 am

[Craig Alan] "Or are we talking about any frame in any clip in the browser?"

Yes. that one. :-)

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

~ 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

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:17:42 pm

Thanks Charlie,

One follow up if you can bear with me. What kind of project needs frame matching frame overwrites enough that not having it is a deal killer? Music vid?

I'm sure others would have other ways of doing it, but I played around a bit and connected the browser clip to the timeline clip set markers in each at the frames I'm trying to match, lined them up, trimed the browser clip to match the duration of the primary clip and overwrote to the main story line. Another option: a replace edit and slip it into place.

Also why do folks feel there is something in FCP X code that makes adding this feature such a problem? If X can do three point edits and back timed edits what would prevent it from doing match frame edits?

I tried setting a marker in the browser's clip and in the timeline clip as a guide for the slip but could not get X to leave the markers in place. Hopefully this is just my inexperience.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:24:10 pm

[Craig Alan] " What kind of project needs frame matching frame overwrites"

In my case, doing advertising for features, we always get at least 2, and sometimes many more versions of the cut. So we have to over cut all our existing work with pix from newer versions. In X, if there are just straight cuts, and you can match the first or last frame it's easy. But if there's a dissolve, or there isn't a good frame to be able to eye match, not having match frame replace is a huge time-suck.

Also folks who do a lot of SFX work, again with multiple versions of the same shot, really need this feature.

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:39:07 pm

[Charlie Austin] "In my case, doing advertising for features, we always get at least 2, and sometimes many more versions of the cut. So we have to over cut all our existing work with pix from newer versions. In X, if there are just straight cuts, and you can match the first or last frame it's easy. But if there's a dissolve, or there isn't a good frame to be able to eye match, not having match frame replace is a huge time-suck.

Also folks who do a lot of SFX work, again with multiple versions of the same shot, really need this feature."


And in my experience (which is not far different from yours, I suspect) I've always only got about half an hour to turn around jobs like these, so every second is ridiculously precious - no time for even the most efficient of workarounds.

The other complicating factor for these workflows is the limitation X still has as regards relinking to new material that doesn't match the original very precisely - one of the great strengths of FCP7 that can still save huge amounts of pain.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:47:42 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I've always only got about half an hour to turn around jobs like these,"

Half an hour?! Luxury! (in heavy Yorkshire accent) lol I honestly find basic from i or o replace in X to be really fast, but not having match frame replace brings the process to a grinding halt. A 3 step workaround for what should be a keystroke like other replace functions is... less than ideal...

[Simon Ubsdell] "one of the great strengths of FCP7 that can still save huge amounts of pain."

Yeah, I miss the "You can't do that... Do it anyway?" options from FCP 7.

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

~ 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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:59:27 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Half an hour?! Luxury! (in heavy Yorkshire accent) lol"

"And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you." ;-)

[Charlie Austin] "A 3 step workaround for what should be a keystroke like other replace functions is... less than ideal..."

It's the dissolves and any other transitions that really make it a pain - that and the lack of gang sync when you're looking for a really tricky eye match.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 6:00:27 pm

Got it. Thanks. Would love to see tutorials on specific professional workflows for particular types of projects. I know from working with professional editors that they work incredibly fast . It's hard to follow because it's largely keyboard commands.

Appreciate all the responses.

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

Erik Lindahl
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 11:57:51 am

The lack of proper timecode readers in FCPX is one of the main issues I have with the app. It's really hard or impossible to see timecode on clips in a project / sequence vs clips in the browser. Have I completely missed something or is this just the way FCPX is? I didn't realize how important these things where before not having them.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:03:41 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "The lack of proper timecode readers in FCPX is one of the main issues I have with the app. It's really hard or impossible to see timecode on clips in a project / sequence vs clips in the browser. Have I completely missed something or is this just the way FCPX is?"

You can use Clip Skimming to see the current timecode at the playhead position - but really a lot more feedback is needed for certain workflows where this feature isn't enough to cut it.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:20:28 pm

That's sadly an extremely inefficient way of dealing with things and requires using mouse over on a specific item.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 5:40:37 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "That's sadly an extremely inefficient way of dealing with things and requires using mouse over on a specific item."

Yes, it's not a particularly nicely implemented feature, that's for sure - especially for those of us who dislike mousing.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 9:10:13 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I don't think that's a fair assessment of "many" X users. Some for sure though and, as someone who prefers X over the other NLE's (that I actually own/rent and use) I find that attitude just as annoying as you do. Just saying."

I should have been more clear. Many users talked about options being good (which they are) but some users got all passive/aggressive about it.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 10:16:11 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Somewhere along the way though that attitude morphed from 'having choices is good' to 'having choices is good, but if you don't choose FCP X you're an idiot'."

Also funny is how some of the non-X folks have gone from "it's not pro" to "it's good to have options"! And it is.

sw

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 12:02:42 am

[Scott Witthaus] "Also funny is how some of the non-X folks have gone from "it's not pro" to "it's good to have options"! And it is."

It wasn't pro before, but Apple has made a lot of good strides. ;)


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 12:27:25 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "It wasn't pro before, but Apple has made a lot of good strides. ;)"

Hell, it was mid-beta when it was released!

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 9:34:58 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jul 19, 2014 at 9:36:10 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[Andrew Kimery] "It wasn't pro before, but Apple has made a lot of good strides. ;)"

Hell, it was mid-beta when it was released!"



Well, wasn't X the first full-blown Application released after the App store made real-time digital distribution of large programs a workable process?

And didn't that kinda change everything?

Today, most major software (and Premier is a great example) appear to be pushed when "ready enough to be quite functional if imperfect" state. And as new features are finished they're pushed when ready. And along the way, as problems are identified, they get fixed and those are then pushed as well.

That seems to me to be the new normal.

Why does Apple keep the THEY made a mistake label, now that most other (all?) software manufacturers now do precisely the same thing?

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

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 9:55:32 pm

[Bill Davis] "Why does Apple keep the THEY made a mistake label, now that most other (all?) software manufacturers now do precisely the same thing?
"


Because Apple is in the media spotlight and that's what PR pros recommend. Say your sorry. Say you take full responsibility for your actions and the actions of your organization and then make no change to your behavior what so ever.

If you get caught again then admit to having a "problem" with this behavior and you have full intention of addressing it. You are now deeply sorry.

If it happens once again then fire someone and promise it will never ever happen again and you are taking serious steps to change the behavior, getting back to the core values, the ones that built the company and the trust that your customers have in 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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 3:43:04 am

[Bill Davis] "Well, wasn't X the first full-blown Application released after the App store made real-time digital distribution of large programs a workable process?

How was it not workable before? People were buying software downloads long before the Mac App store. Hell, even long before the iOS App store. Steam, for example, is the leading digital distributor of computer games and that service is over a decade old.

To be honest, having online purchases tied to a single account can be a real pain. For example, I recently did some software upgrades for a client and the company owner (it's a mom & pop setup) had to give me his personal iTMS info so I could access the Mac App store. Conversely when I needed to buy a copy of Shotput Pro for them they just handed over the company CC.

To go on a slight rant, all the music, books, programs, etc., we buy from digital app stores like the iTMS are all nontransferable licenses. While it's super convenient I think it's going to come to a head once more people truly realize how little control and ownership they have over what they've 'purchased'.



And didn't that kinda change everything?"


Did it? If you shop exclusively at the Mac App store then I guess it changed everything. For people that don't do that it changed nothing, or maybe just something, but certainly not everything.

[Bill Davis] "Today, most major software (and Premier is a great example) appear to be pushed when "ready enough to be quite functional if imperfect" state. And as new features are finished they're pushed when ready. And along the way, as problems are identified, they get fixed and those are then pushed as well."

"Why does Apple keep the THEY made a mistake label, now that most other (all?) software manufacturers now do precisely the same thing?"


I think the "beta" dig at X was more at its bare bones feature set when it was released (no multicam, only 'preview' quality video out, no way to import FCP Legend projects, etc.,). I mean, getting something 'good enough' out the door and then distributing software patches via the Internet isn't exactly a new thing.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 6:15:54 am

[Andrew Kimery] "How was it not workable before? People were buying software downloads long before the Mac App store. Hell, even long before the iOS App store. Steam, for example, is the leading digital distributor of computer games and that service is over a decade old.
"


Ok then,

I'm not a gamer nor have I ever been, so I can see how I missed that.

FCP-X was the first serious productivity application from a major computer company that *I* ever saw sold exclusively via internet download without an alternative of a box on a shelf somewhere.

If there were others, I'll cop to the ignorance.

Sorry.

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 3:43:59 pm

[Mark Snow] "The pain of missing tracks, the missing features (Keyframing) and the, quite frankly infantile language (Events?) and messy timeline (what are all those compulsory Spaghettis-Links for?) is for the moment outweighed by good will, hope for speed, easiness and curiosity."

I used to miss tracks at the beginning but now they seem to get in the way. Sure, tracks might be of some use for certain things but the timeline strategy in X works great. Will take getting use to but it is just plain awesome.

Agree with you on keyframes, which has never been a strong point of Final Cut Pro (any version) or with that of another NLE of choice. Motion and After Effects are much better suited, still learning them in Resolve 11 at the moment.

As far as libraries, events, and projects go, this was something else that caused initial confusion. After watching a few videos, it began to make sense. Projects in FCP X are the timeline, the sequence and should not be confused with the terminology used in versions previous. I name the events in the context of the overall program and associated media. For example, a vacation video would have events with the location we went to, keywords would then further organize the clips.

I am an avid user of FCP X!


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 18, 2014 at 3:59:01 pm

[Mark Snow] "Finally, my friends. We will switch from fcp7 to X at our shop. We do mostly Documentaries and some PR/Corporate videos."

Certainly keep us posted, Mark. I mainly do long form unscripted work so I'm always curious to hear how effectively X tackles that type of work.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 8:56:20 am

If you come from FCP7 you are in for a treat. And if only for the advantages of using a 64-bit machine (I hope you also upgraded hardware, because FCPX needs a new GPU).

After you enjoy the ease of organizing your footage and materials in the event, you will find that timelines are not messy at all. On the contrary when I look at timelines on twitter (e.g. on timeline tuesday) the AVID timelines look "messy" to me even when they are neatly tidied up. I just don´t see the need for 42 tracks anymore in my work.

Some people here keep pointing at issues they have at their current workflow which FCPX does solve differently (or maybe not at all). I could point at many issues a FCPX user has in CC or Avid just as much.

Other people keep feeling offended by the terms FCPX introduced. Well, I never used the FCP-term "sequence" which was just as arbitrary as calling it "project". For me usually it is a timeline, but I often use the term project for the timeline, especially when the job consists of ONE timeline that consists of several other timelines/compounds/multicams and assets. In FCPX every clip or asset can be its own timeline (there is a command "Open in Timeline"...it doesn´t say project there). Timeline and project are different terms and it makes sense when you understand the workflow. And I don´t want to call anyone an idiot as some of you accused another user of, just say if you never learned and understood the tool maybe you shouldn´t judge it by your current workflow, because I could pick that apart from an FCPX standpoint also. But since I don't know Avid good enough, I don´t even start it. I have tried Premiere CC, but after using FCPX for 3 years it seems like such a step backwards I gave up comparing it to X.

Every NLE has its strengths. FCPX match frame is different and yes it lacks Timecode functionalities. I don´t miss it since I can look at every timecode of every clip any time in the timeline (via "clip skimming") and I don´t need to see 15 time codes at once (after all my audio is synced up at all times and clip connections, multicams or auditions take care of other sync-spots).

Will Mark have growing pains...of course. There are growing pains when switching from automatic gears to manual gear shifting in a car and vice versa. It is all about staying open minded, listen to people and learn from editors who have successfully used X already. For docs there is no tool that can help organizing vast amounts of data as smart as FCPX does. So good luck on that journey, Mark!



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 7:47:33 pm

[alban egger] "For docs there is no tool that can help organizing vast amounts of data as smart as FCPX does."


Alban,

I'll just comment on this particular trope since it is oft repeated here in variations.

I can't speak to the browser-based editing workflows that FCP X key-wording seems designed for, but I will say that there are many ways of organizing vast amounts of data, and for sequence-based editing workflows (doc or otherwise) I don't see any advantages in X - I certainly wouldn't call it the "smartest" tool.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 8:15:06 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "there are many ways of organizing vast amounts of data, and for sequence-based editing workflows (doc or otherwise) I don't see any advantages in X - I certainly wouldn't call it the "smartest" tool."

Serious question… how would you define the difference between "browser based" and "sequence based" editing?

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

~ 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: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 8:32:06 pm

[Charlie Austin] "... how would you define the difference between "browser based" and "sequence based" editing?"

Charlie,

I've discussed it before but never composed the longer post that I've mused about. Some clarity here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/44788 (Nov 2012)
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/52771 (May 2013)

(Note: I originally made the distinction between "sequence-based" and "clip-based", but I think "clip-based" is a poor choice of words and "browser-based" is better.)

Franz.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 8:33:27 pm
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Jul 19, 2014 at 8:36:48 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Serious question… how would you define the difference between "browser based" and "sequence based" editing?"

Sequenced-based editing lets you do this:

http://vashivisuals.com/the-pancake-timeline-maximum-limit-is-24-hours/

It's a lovely technique that has advantages you just can't get with FCPX's browser-based editing, as powerful as it is.

For example, in the FCPX browser, every clip appears the same length in the browser window, no matter what its duration. A sequence gives more immediate visual context in regards to clip length. This may be essential information the editor needs.

I'm not saying browser-based editing is less valuable than sequence-based editing, quite the contrary, I think it's a very powerful and new tool. But sequence-based editing can be just as powerful.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 19, 2014 at 11:24:18 pm

David,
Correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't FCP X address this need by allowing the composition of compound clips in the browser and then being able to open them in their own timeline? I don't yet have my head wrapped around this work flow but I'm trying. Warnings about the reliability of using too many compound clips did not help me embrace the workflow.

[David Lawrence] "FCPX browser, every clip appears the same length in the browser window, no matter what its duration. A sequence gives more immediate visual context in regards to clip length. This may be essential information the editor needs."

You can adjust the thumbnail's representative duration and the duration is shown in the inspector and in list view. At 1m you clearly see relative durations.

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

alban egger
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 5:24:42 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I can't speak to the browser-based editing workflows that FCP X key-wording seems designed for, but I will say that there are many ways of organizing vast amounts of data, and for sequence-based editing workflows (doc or otherwise) I don't see any advantages in X - I certainly wouldn't call it the "smartest" tool."

See here I tend to strongly feel you don´t know FCPX really and just like to express your dislike constantly.
I can give you an example how FCPX can be smart in MY opinion, of course those who hate FCPX will never agree, I put it out there anyway for those who are actually interested in the tool:
I made a documentary for a historic olympic host city with dozens of lengthy interviews, current footage, stock and historic licences IOC footage plus footage bought from private persons, who filmed at those times in color and black and white.
My "record" in this doc was to give one interview answer 11 keywords. So in any other NLE you would have to create 11 sub-clips in various length which you copy to 11 sub-bins.

If I now need to find all relevant assets that have to do with "athleteA", "yearX", "double luge", "turn13", "interview or slow-motion", "shot in color" and available in "1080p or "4K"" (to exclude private DVD material) and NOT "IOClicense" (to exclude licensing issues) it takes me exactly 20-30 seconds to do so with a simple smart collection. Mind you this also displays every interview bit where ANOTHER athlete speaks about "athleteA". That workflow is smart and I challenge any editor to find the exact same data in a shorter amount of time without extensive preparation on timecodesheets and (several) assistants to keep check of those through the whole process of logging and editing.



Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 5:18:04 pm

Craig,

You can attempt the same thing in X with compound clips but it is much more sloppy. For one, you can't see the separate clip lengths and i/o marks as they're nested. Pancake editing involves to an extent grabbing the clip up top and dragging to where you please. Also for me, I enjoy using markers a LOT. The marker system in X is beyond weak. Avid doesn't have the capability for pancake editing, however you could employ the "nested sequence in the browser technique" as you would with X. The difference is, all the markers you used in the sequence will show up in the browser/viewer and. And when you cut into the sequence/project (with Avid) the clip will be separated. X will retain its nest which will require you to break part every clip you used.

Speaking of markers, All the other Major NLE's give marker options which could be used along with sub clipping or an alternative workflow to how Alban is doing it. In X, no colored markers, no maker list drop down in the browser, no marker retention in the nest. Now if X allowed 2 simultaneous projects to be opened I suppose you could use the database function on the left (whats that thing called again) to achieve some nice results. For now, browser based editing is really the only way, which most people may not mind. Every clip showing the same length with lack of a viewer can be annoying as I constantly find myself having to expand longer clips to get the proper selection.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 6:04:46 pm

Thanks David. I haven't tried much to "edit" in the browser. And with all the posts about compound clips causing problems I've been reluctant to dig too deep. I find it strange to step in and out of compound break apart secondary break apart to access different features. I am also struggling with X's markers that I like to use as placeholders. For day to day muscle memory, I've pretty much forgotten FCP 7, but I'm still kinda married to the workflow of creating sub-clips in the browser - composition in the timeline. I have gotten used to the much more robust metadata based sub clipping in FCP X. I do miss the window layout features of FCP 7. When I created my sub clips I'd switch to a layout that let me set in and out points on a large viewer and browser.

Markers:


and these can be found/searched for/filtered in the index (the thing on the left). I think that is pretty powerful.

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

alban egger
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 6:23:48 pm

[David Powell] "In X, no colored markers, no maker list drop down in the browser, no marker retention in the nest. Now if X allowed 2 simultaneous projects to be opened I suppose you could use the database function on the left (whats that thing called again) to achieve some nice results."

Yes, the marker system is not comparable (yet?). What you mean is the Timeline Index, where you can search the markers, which you set in the Event Browser or Timeline. They are searchable there (like they are in the Event Browser). But they don´t carry from the timeline back to the browser (workaround is maybe using matchframe and then set the marker) and they are not in the timeline index when you hide them in a compound.
Speaking of Compounds: I find the compounds to be very robust now (there were issues until about 1 year ago), but as you correctly point out, we easily lose the reference as to what is actually going on in the compound.

Back to the markers: in X markers are IMO not a good way to tag interviews, simply for the fact, that keywords are much more powerful, because you can with one click identify all soundbites that belong together, instead of having to search through marker-texts. There are situations, where that is helpful especially as a second check, but in general I feel keywords and smart-collections are much better.



Return to posts index

Mark Snow
Re: Oh dear, we will switch to fcpx!
on Jul 20, 2014 at 8:53:12 pm

Wow, thanks everyone, I need more time to even read all of this here!

I think the reason, so many editors are still kind of angry is that they so got used to FCP7, using it as motion design tool, NLE, image processor, CC and what not, and got such an expert, that it is like the old VW-Bus (Van) you can not let go, because you lived your whole life in this work-horse.

@alban: yes we are going to have the shiny round, ehem... Bin..;)

Let's see in a year if I still miss the good old Bezier-smoothed Zoom-ins in my films. Our Plan B would be Premiere, but I hope not, for me their interface still looks too tiny-nerdy-windowsy somewhat. Maybe Blackmagic can really do the trick even. Who knows, I guess, we'll see!

After 2-3 years since the fcpX-shock, credit is due to the developers of X for addressing a lot of stuff, that was killing the vibes. And talking of improving software, it could be worse, i won't start to complain about passwords being displayed on my mobile in plain sight or not even being able to edit a simple text file from the cloud on my phone...


Return to posts index

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