FORUMS: list search recent posts

A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Lawrence
A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 4, 2014 at 11:58:24 pm

Continuing from this subthread where I asked:

[David Lawrence] "In FCPX, dissolves always center-allign between the gap and the clip. Not what I want.

How do I set transition alignment? Anyone?"


And the answer is... you can’t. Oops.

No overwrite paste for audio and transitions always center between clips. Looks like the Microwave NLE of the Future™ has trouble boiling a cup of water. ;D

I confess. I’m a lazy, imprecise, editor. :)

I use audio dissolves all the time. 6-frame dissolves to smooth an audio cut-point. 2-frame dissolves to seamlessly Frankenclip dialogue. Dissolves are one of my most frequently used tools for isolating bits of actuality and gluing audio together.

[John Davidson] "My screen grab accomplishes this almost exactly as you describe. And I do all of it in about 4 seconds." http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/71844

OK, but with my lazy dissolve technique, I do the same thing in a single key press. Like this:





A single key press applies a 15-frame dissolve up from black to video and a 6-frame dissolve up from silence to audio at the head. And visa-versa on the tail. The dissolves start or end on the clip at the exact frame I choose and follow any trims.

On my current job, I’m doing this for hundreds and hundreds of individual short clips. So the difference between taking 4-seconds to manually perform a layered A/B transition and a millisecond key press to apply a dissolve adds up pretty fast. ;) Maybe I'm missing something but I can't imagine doing this as efficiently in FCPX.

[John Davidson] "With this, you can sub frame edit with such precision that it's sick." http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/71851

[Charlie Austin] "I can do the exact same thing, with finer control, in the X timeline using fade handles just as easily. Easier actually." http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/71870

Yes, the question of accuracy. Some of you already know this but for anyone who doesn’t, it’s easy to get sample accurate precision for audio transitions in Premiere like this:






I rarely use this because 6-frames works fine for this purpose 95% of the time. But if I need it, I can easily do dissolves with sample accuracy. It’s sick. :)

Selection and trim tools vary but this basic audio dissolve technique should work in any NLE that supports transition alignment, for example - Premiere CS6, CC, AVID, FCP7 and likely others I haven't tried. I think it would add a lot of value to FCPX.

So there you have it. I may be lazy but audio dissolves help me work much much faster. Really wish I could use them in the Microwave NLE of the Future™. I guess for now I'll have to stick to cutting with more primitive, imprecise tools. ;)

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:31:52 am

[David Lawrence] "Selection and trim tools vary but this basic audio dissolve technique should work in any NLE that supports transition alignment, for example - Premiere CS6, CC, AVID, FCP7 and likely others I haven't tried. I think it would add a lot of value to FCPX."

I think adding transition alignment to dissolves would be nice too, I've requested it. The fact remains that I can do all the stuff you just shown as easlly in X using fade handles, which copy and paste just like anything else, or using just the current symmetric dissolves for crossfades. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement in X's dissolves, but it's not the FAIL you think it is. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:42:25 am
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:42:56 am

[Charlie Austin] "The fact remains that I can do all the stuff you just shown as easlly in X using fade handles, which copy and paste just like anything else, or using just the current symmetric dissolves for crossfades. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement in X's dissolves, but it's not the FAIL you think it is. :-)"

LOL, I never said you couldn't do these things Charlie, just that it's a total PITA in FCPX. How much fiddling do you wind up doing to get the same effect I get with a single key press? Now imagine doing that hundreds of times an hour. You deserve better tools! :)

_______________________
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


Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 1:05:36 am

[David Lawrence] "LOL, I never said you couldn't do these things Charlie, just that it's a total PITA in FCPX. How much fiddling do you wind up doing to get the same effect I get with a single key press?"

Not much really

edit



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

~ 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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 1:18:19 am

So much pita, I now need some hummus.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 1:21:26 am

[Charlie Austin] "Not much really"

lol, you're working way too hard, Charlie! ;)

BTW, doesn't it make you kinda sad you can only see half your waveform? ;D

_______________________
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


Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 1:35:09 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 5, 2014 at 1:42:59 am

[David Lawrence] "BTW, doesn't it make you kinda sad you can only see half your waveform? ;D"

Now you're grasping at straws. ;-) and uh... nope. Also, you do know it's the entire (rectified) waveform right? It's the default view in Pr, so you should. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 2:48:32 am

[Charlie Austin] "Now you're grasping at straws. ;-) and uh... nope. Also, you do know it's the entire (rectified) waveform right? It's the default view in Pr, so you should. ;-)"

lol, yes Charlie, I know what rectified waveforms are. ;)

They're the first thing I turn off in Premiere, because they're lame. Seriously, it doesn't matter that it's all the waveform data, it's still half the visual information at a glance.

As an option, fine. As the only choice? Lame.

Hey, at least I can turn them off. You deserve that option too! ;)

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:00:53 am

[David Lawrence] "lol, yes Charlie, I know what rectified waveforms are. ;)"

I know you know. ;-)

[David Lawrence] "Hey, at least I can turn them off. You deserve that option too! ;)
"


But I like them. :-) Also I don't want any more options. I enjoy using FCPX because it's so rigid and inflexible. lol

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

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


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:10:39 am

[Charlie Austin] "But I like them. :-) "

Really? Really truly? Do you use them in your DAW? ;) ;) ;)

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:17:14 am

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "But I like them. :-) "

Really? Really truly? Do you use them in your DAW? ;) ;) ;)
"


Actually, yes. Not always, but it's sometimes easier to keyframe levels cause you can kinda follow the "curve" of the waveform a little easier visually. Regular waveforms don't always visually reflect the relative level as well. Especially when the clip/track height is minimized. That's why I like 'em in X and keep 'em on in Pr when I use it. My clip/track height is always as small as I can get it and still see waveforms.

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

~ 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

Walter Soyka
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:26:04 am

[Charlie Austin] "Not always, but it's sometimes easier to keyframe levels cause you can kinda follow the "curve" of the waveform a little easier visually. Regular waveforms don't always visually reflect the relative level as well. Especially when the clip/track height is minimized. That's why I like 'em in X and keep 'em on in Pr when I use it. My clip/track height is always as small as I can get it and still see waveforms."

Yes, my assumption is that rectified waveforms minimize the display of redundant information, effectively doubling your vertical resolution / ability to display dynamic range. So my question of standard waveforms would be, "Why do you need to see the same information twice?"

I generally keep rectified waveforms on in Premiere, but I feel like I occasionally misinterpret them a bit as I'm working. This is certainly operator error, but I'd like to know what I'm missing. Am I just forgetting that apparent dynamic range is different?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:35:40 am

[Walter Soyka] "Yes, my assumption is that rectified waveforms minimize the display of redundant information, effectively doubling your vertical resolution / ability to display dynamic range. So my question of standard waveforms would be, "Why do you need to see the same information twice?""

Because it's not redundant information. If you look closely at a waveform you'll see that it's never perfectly symmetrical. There's visual information about relative levels that comes across more immediately when you see both sides of the wave. It's also faster to spot valleys and zero crossings. At least it is for me.

Question - how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:40:53 am

[David Lawrence] "It's also faster to spot valleys and zero crossings. At least it is for me."

Yeah, it is for sure. It's a different strokes thing I guess. zero crossings are for the mixer to worry about. ;-)

[David Lawrence] "Question - how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?"

I dunno, how come they have them as an option? Why does Pr use them as the default setting? Why is the sky blue??!?! ;-D

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

~ 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

Walter Soyka
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:43:23 am
Last Edited By Walter Soyka on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:44:06 am

[David Lawrence] "Because it's not redundant information. If you look closely at a waveform you'll see that it's never perfectly symmetrical."

How much useful information is there in the asymmetry? What can you know about the sound from seeing this asymmetry?

Serious question. I'm predominantly a visuals designer, so looking closely at a waveform is not something you're likely to find me doing.


[David Lawrence] "It's also faster to spot valleys and zero crossings. At least it is for me."

Me too. I wonder if some kind of color or intensity coding on these areas would help.


[David Lawrence] "Question - how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?"

Assuming this is not an appeal to authority, I'm all ears for the answer.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:51:00 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:56:42 am

[Walter Soyka] "[David Lawrence] "Question - how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?"

Assuming this is not an appeal to authority, I'm all ears for the answer."


Despite my flippant reply to David... probably because it's easier to accurately cut on zero crossings. And I'm not dismissing the importance of this, especially mixing/cutting music for finishing. But in an NLE, we're primarily concerned with picture. If I'm gonna edit music for a finish or something, I'll use logic or protools. In an NLE, any issues with cut points can be quickly "fixed" with a fade, or a dissolve or a trim. It's cheating, but I gotta get my cut to the client, if there's an issue with pops/clicks it'll get fixed when it goes to finish. That said, it's not been a serious issue for me, even cutting with regular waveforms I'm not zooming in to check the edit point that closely. I guess I'm lazy. (on topic!!) ;-)

EDIT. And honestly... with reference waveforms on in FCP X, it's pretty easy to spot zero crossings if you need to, even if the amplitude of the clip is really low...




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

~ 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

Walter Soyka
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:59:13 am

[Charlie Austin] "Despite my flippant reply to David... probably because it's easier to accurately cut on zero crossings."

This would be easily solved if the software specifically marked zero crossings on the rectified waveform -- just shift the baseline of the waveform up a touch and add a little mark at the zero crossing.

Double points for making zero crossings a snapping point for the playhead.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 4:06:52 am

[Walter Soyka] "This would be easily solved if the software specifically marked zero crossings on the rectified waveform -- just shift the baseline of the waveform up a touch and add a little mark at the zero crossing. "

Or maybe they could just add a preference option for regular waveforms!

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 4:12:54 am

[David Lawrence] "Or maybe they could just add a preference option for regular waveforms!"

But then the clip display would turn into a hideous unreadable mess like FCP 7 or Pr. ;-) Anyway, As this video of a single audio frame illustrates, it's pretty easy to spot zero crossings and other audio info using rectified waveforms as well. In X or really anything that uses 'em and lets you get in close.

A Frame



But again, who's got time for that? I needed a cut to the client now! That's why audio editors/mixers have jobs? You trying to put people out of work?!? :-D

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

~ 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

Walter Soyka
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 4:24:24 am

[David Lawrence] "Or maybe they could just add a preference option for regular waveforms!"

Well sure, but then it wouldn't be like editing in the future! ;)

And seriously, some kind of formal recognition of zero crossings would be cool. Audition makes it easy to adjust your edit points to zero crossings [link], or to snap to zero crossings. Your NLE should, too. It shouldn't require this much effort to find the best place to cut audio. Computers are supposed to help us with stuff like this!

Put another way: if a primary use of the waveform is to find the right place to cut, why make us visually inspect for that point when the computer could do it?

And for gauging the overall level: is the waveform the best tool for this job? Wouldn't some kind of loudness measure be better?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 4:36:16 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:45:19 am

[Walter Soyka] " It shouldn't require this much effort to find the best place to cut audio."

And it doesn't, ya just scrub to the cut point audibly, and cut. :-) if there's a pop ya fix it with a fade and move on. The computer might move to the wrong zero crossing!!! Anyway, according to some people, the software should never do anything for you, it should all be done manually. ;-)

[Walter Soyka] "Put another way: if a primary use of the waveform is to find the right place to cut,"

It isn't, really. There's a lot of other uses for waveforms when editing/cutting music etc. DAW's let you draw/modify waveforms. change frequency, amplitude, phase etc. But in an NLE... why? I'm primarily cutting picture and the audio that goes with it. If I want to do crazy detailed audio work (I don't, been there done that) I'll move into a DAW. I want a scalpel, not a swiss army knife.. If I find I need a screwdriver I'll grab a real one, not some little attachment that folds out. lol YMMV...



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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:59:32 am

[Walter Soyka] "How much useful information is there in the asymmetry? What can you know about the sound from seeing this asymmetry?"

I don't know if it's the asymmetry that's most important as much as it is the gestalt of seeing the energy of the entire waveform. For example, with voice, I can look at a waveform and instantly get a sense of the pattern of speech. I can also instantly judge if levels are healthy. This comes across visually before even hearing the sound.

I think rectified waveforms make spotting this kind of info much more difficult at a glance, especially for sounds with low levels.

_______________________
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

Walter Soyka
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 4:03:18 am

[David Lawrence] "For example, with voice, I can look at a waveform and instantly get a sense of the pattern of speech. I can also instantly judge if levels are healthy. This comes across visually before even hearing the sound. I think rectified waveforms make spotting this kind of info much more difficult at a glance, especially for sounds with low levels."

Do you think this is due to greater familiarity with standard waveforms, an inappropriate scale with rectified waveforms, or is an inherent flaw in the design of the graph?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 4:52:57 am

[Walter Soyka] "Do you think this is due to greater familiarity with standard waveforms, an inappropriate scale with rectified waveforms, or is an inherent flaw in the design of the graph?"

I think it's an inherent flaw in the graph design. Sound waves have both positive and negative energy. Standard waveforms accurately display this energy visually as positive and negative values (above and below the centerline).

Rectified waveforms cut the display in half. The negative energy is moved into the positive visual space. This means even though you're seeing a technically accurate representation of the concentration of sound energy, you're losing important visual cues from negative space that would normally surround both sides of a standard waveform.

As a visual designer, I'm sure you appreciate the value of negative space in visual communication. Rectified waveforms remove half of the negative space visual information about the sound.

_______________________
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


Richard Herd
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 11:02:12 pm

[David Lawrence] "Question - how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?"

Because it's really not that important when using busses, compressors, wideners, and so on. By the time the signal flow has reached the master, the waveform sitting in the edit window is useless.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:36:02 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:46:01 am

[Walter Soyka] "I generally keep rectified waveforms on in Premiere, but I feel like I occasionally misinterpret them a bit as I'm working. This is certainly operator error, but I'd like to know what I'm missing. Am I just forgetting that apparent dynamic range is different?"

Our replies crossed, but no... I don't think your really missing anything unless you're trying to do sample level phase matching of 2 identical clips recorded from like, a lav and a boom or something. I'm sure there are other cases where full waveforms might be beneficial. Again, they just let you see both the + and - amplitude so they're more "accurate" in that regard. Not really an issue with dia/fx/pre-mixed mx etc. At least to me... In the end, it's all about your ears anyway. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:29:12 am

[Charlie Austin] " That's why I like 'em in X and keep 'em on in Pr when I use it. My clip/track height is always as small as I can get it and still see waveforms."

Ha! Well we're definitely opposites in that regard. The videos I posted above are exaggerated for clarity, but my usual strategy (especially when cutting audio) is to make my audio tracks as large as I can get away with!

Different strokes...

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 4:19:53 am

[David Lawrence] "Ha! Well we're definitely opposites in that regard. The videos I posted above are exaggerated for clarity, but my usual strategy (especially when cutting audio) is to make my audio tracks as large as I can get away with!

Different strokes...
"


Yep. :-) Thus the never ending debate. With a few exceptions, it's all really about how you, or I, or anyone likes to work. And one way isn't necessarily "better" than another. Except maybe to the individual. :-)

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

~ 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

Walter Soyka
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:09:14 am

[David Lawrence] "I know what rectified waveforms are. ;)"\\

[Charlie Austin] "But I like them. :-) "

Can you gents explain something for me?

I understand how rectified waveforms are drawn -- but as a visuals guy, I don't know what information they convey better than standard waveforms, and vice versa.

So my question is this: what are rectified waveforms better for, and what are standard waveforms better for?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:17:00 am

[Walter Soyka] "So my question is this: what are rectified waveforms better for, and what are standard waveforms better for?"

I'd like to know the answer to this too! As far as I can tell, rectified waveforms offer no benefits whatsoever.

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 3:29:29 am

[Walter Soyka] "So my question is this: what are rectified waveforms better for, and what are standard waveforms better for?"

As I noted above (below?) Rectified waveforms offer a better visual representation of the clips relative levels. So, to me, they're better for quickly gauging the effect or necessity of any level changes you make. Also, they convey the information in less vertical space.

"Regular" waveforms are probably more accurate if you're doing reall tight keyframing and you want to make sure your changes are correctly affecting both the + and - amplitude. Personally, that type of waveform editing is something I don't do when I'm cutting in an NLE.

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow - Future microwave innovations
on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:07:58 pm

I've got nothing to add really, I just wanted to get the microwave into the thread title.

http://i.imgur.com/574uWB1.jpg

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:01:29 pm

At risk of getting OT, watching you drag that playhead around with your mouse made me think about my skimmer ; )


I need my skimmer! : p : ))

I can't believe how addicted to it I have become.

Back on, I'm really shocked at how good my mix sounds using those handles. To look at them I wouldn't have thought it would work well at all.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:07:02 pm

[tony west] "Back on, I'm really shocked at how good my mix sounds using those handles. To look at them I wouldn't have thought it would work well at all."

Also back on topic, I'm rather shocked anyone would prefer dragging mix handles to a single key press to get the exact same result! My hand's getting cramped just thinking about it! :D

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:43:24 pm

[David Lawrence] "Also back on topic, I'm rather shocked anyone would prefer dragging mix handles to a single key press to get the exact same result! My hand's getting cramped just thinking about it! :D"

And, on topic, I can't believe anyone would want to work in a system where you had to click and hold a button and drag the mouse to scrub, or worse, require you to click somewhere or something to solo a clip to scrub it. My wrist hurts just thinking about it! lol

strokes=different ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 7:27:52 pm

[Charlie Austin] "nd, on topic, I can't believe anyone would want to work in a system where you had to click and hold a button and drag the mouse to scrub, or worse, require you to click somewhere or something to solo a clip to scrub it."

Agreed! That's why every day for weeks I've been using FCPX on this job to ingest, log, notate, and organize my interview bites. I love it! It's the best logging tool I've ever used.

But the timeline?
Pants! ;D

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 7:50:16 pm

[David Lawrence] "But the timeline? Pants! ;D"

lol... but it's the same workflow/features. Really, X isn't the only NLE I work in. Honest. And I don't think it's the be all, end all either. What it is, is awesome! :-)

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

~ 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

tony west
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 12:49:08 pm

David,

The only difference being that dragging that playhead is part of the majority of your edits.

Dissolving audio isn't.


The conversation is about the number of clicks for a certain edit, but the ironic things is, that's negated if you are clicking in the timeline every time you want to move the playhead.

Your total number of clicks are higher. If it's about clicks, to keep it real, you would have to round up all the clicks for the overall edit session.

The skimmer cuts down the clicks on every type of edit.

So however you are getting to that one audio edit, it's more clicks for the session.

My focus is the overall session, not just part of it : )


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 2:54:14 pm

[tony west] "The skimmer cuts down the clicks on every type of edit."

In theory, since you have to move the mouse anyway, click and dragging doesn't seem like it'd be that big a deal.

In practice, the skimmer is the thing I miss the most about FCP X in other NLEs.

This difference is very hard to explain to someone, but I think nearly anyone can experience it for themselves with just a bit of time in FCP X.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:00:20 pm

There's skimming, and then there's clip skimming. It saves so much time trying to enable/disable just the right clips, and then reenable and redisable them all again.

But whatever, pants, microwaves, etc.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:26:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "In practice, the skimmer is the thing I miss the most about FCP X in other NLEs.

This difference is very hard to explain to someone, but I think nearly anyone can experience it for themselves with just a bit of time in FCP X."


I agree Walter, I almost feel goofy bringing it up because it's so simplistic that it sound almost trivial.

and I also second what Jeremy said about it.

Little things sometime add up to big differences.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 6:17:18 pm

[David Lawrence] "On my current job, I’m doing this for hundreds and hundreds of individual short clips. So the difference between taking 4-seconds to manually perform a layered A/B transition and a millisecond key press to apply a dissolve adds up pretty fast. ;) Maybe I'm missing something but I can't imagine doing this as efficiently in FCPX. "

that's my thing too. It feels like one of those really basic things where if I had to do it the way the guys are doing it, again and again throughout the day - I'm pretty sure it would start to drive me gaga. I'm kind of surprised it hasn't come up more often. Also the fact that the dissolve left and right edges can act as magnetically connected rolling trim points for the whole timeline is indescribably weird?

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 6:27:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that's my thing too. It feels like one of those really basic things where if I had to do it the way the guys are doing it, again and again throughout the day - I'm pretty sure it would start to drive me gaga. I'm kind of surprised it hasn't come up more often. Also the fact that the dissolve left and right edges can act as magnetically connected rolling trim points for the whole timeline is indescribably weird?"

It would be easier if it was a simple keypress of course! Aren't people saying that the FCPX way is tolerable not more efficient? I haven't read all of this thread I'm busy designing a microwave

Steve Connor

Hoping to become a pedant


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:20:25 pm

[Steve Connor] "Aren't people saying that the FCPX way is tolerable not more efficient?"

no that's bang on - I was just surprised at the way it ends up working. Charlie said people have been sending feature requests on the audio dissolve - no harm as it seems a bit of a headwreck. although messing with the fade gui and options is a fun town. Although I found it a bit finnicky to access the fade handles on the edge of the clip?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 7:00:50 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that's my thing too. It feels like one of those really basic things where if I had to do it the way the guys are doing it, again and again throughout the day - I'm pretty sure it would start to drive me gaga. "

Again... and I'm not trying to change your minds here... I can copy and paste fade-handle fades with curves to multiple audio components or connected clips, just like pasting dissolves. If I apply a dissolve to the head or tail of a connected clip, it start/ends at the head or tail of the clip. I can copy and paste dissolves to other connected clips just like anything else.

Hell, I can select and modify every dissolve duration/curve type in my cut at once, or just specific selected groups of dissolves throughout it. In short, I can do exactly the same thing as you, and just as easily. Really, I'm not making this up, i do it al the time, all day, just like you.

No, i can't do asymmetric dissolves between adjacent clips (unless I'm doing a dip to color dissolve, which can be adjusted... go figure). And if that one feature is a deal killer, so be it. But it's not less efficient, and it's not just tolerable. It's just different.

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20:40 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I can copy and paste fade-handle fades with curves to multiple audio components or connected clips, just like pasting dissolves."

Yes, but don't you need to use the Paste Attributes dialogue do do this?

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 7:56:22 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yes, but don't you need to use the Paste Attributes dialogue do do this?
"


Well, yeah, so? :-) Also, since this feature (expanded audio and fade handles) doesn't exist in other NLE's, any comparison is invalid. You can't do it in Pr even if you want to. ;-)

But, if I detach the audio like it is in Pr, and put dissolves at the head or tail of a clip, it's the same millisecond click you describe. I don't generally do that, 'cuz fade handles are more to my liking. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:22:50 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Well, yeah, so? :-)"

Well, so you're:

1) selecting a dialog box from a menu
2) checking the appropriate check boxes (FCPX doesn't remember your last choice)
3) hitting OK

To get exact same result I get in a single key press!

Pants, Charlie. Pants. ;D

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:30:27 pm

[David Lawrence] "Well, so you're:

1) selecting a dialog box from a menu
2) checking the appropriate check boxes (FCPX doesn't remember your last choice)
3) hitting OK

To get exact same result I get in a single key press!"


Well, no, I'm hitting a KB command, checkbox, Enter. But as I said, it's an invalid comparison anyway, as no such feature exists in Pr.

If I'm copy pasting dissolves on connected audio clips, it's a single key press!

No Pants! :-}

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:43:28 pm

[Charlie Austin] "If I'm copy pasting dissolves on connected audio clips, it's a single key press!"

Cool!

I should add that my single key press applies asymmetrical dissolves (of differing lengths) to both the video and the audio at the same time.

Can you paste asymmetrical dissolves on both connected audio clips and video at the same time in FCPX?

If so, maybe I could make it work!

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:53:45 pm

[David Lawrence] "Can you paste asymmetrical dissolves on both connected audio clips and video at the same time in FCPX?"

I dunno, I've honestly never tried to, or needed to do that ever.In anything. Different strokes... I suppose If I needed to do that, I'd use the tool that allowed me to do so. What I don't think I'd do is cry FAIL! at the other tools. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:37:28 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:38:31 pm

we should stop this David. Why are we hammering on this? Oh wait now I remember:

http://i.imgur.com/574uWB1.jpg

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:45:00 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "we should stop this David. Why are we hammering on this? Oh wait now I remember:"

lol... nicely done. :-)

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

~ 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

Shawn Miller
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:02:13 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Also, since this feature (expanded audio and fade handles)doesn't exist in other NLE's, any comparison is invalid. You can't do it in Pr even if you want to"

Vegas has had fade handles since v1... and auto fades to avoid clip overwrites. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:08:41 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Vegas has had fade handles since v1... and auto fades to avoid clip overwrites. :-)
"


Likely because it started as mainly a DAW but point taken. Honestly, even in an NLE with tracks, I'm not sure an auto-fade would be desirable, particularly when dealing with dialog. I imagine it could cause... unexpected results when rippling sections of a cut. Track Tetris still required. I'm sure it's nice though... :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:18:00 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I'm sure it's nice though... :-)"

It is, I'm just waiting for the port to OSX so I can begin converting everyone here. :-P

Shawn



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 11:10:36 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I'm not sure an auto-fade would be desirable, "

It should be like this: If the audio is in a secondary, then the collision creates a crossfade.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 7:25:51 pm

Hey sure - it's just that every time you want to re-construct a custom audio dissolve:

after you make the blade edit, you're first of all right clicking and expanding audio components,

then you are selecting and modifying the fade on the outgoing clip, then selecting and modifying the fade on the incoming clip. I've done a few run throughs - that's pretty much the process right? Jeremy seemed to be doing that in his demo on the thread below.

Have I got this right?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:03:17 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Hey sure - it's just that every time you want to re-construct a custom audio dissolve:

after you make the blade edit, you're first of all right clicking and expanding audio components,

then you are selecting and modifying the fade on the outgoing clip, then selecting and modifying the fade on the incoming clip. I've done a few run throughs - that's pretty much the process right? Jeremy seemed to be doing that in his demo on the thread below.

Have I got this right?"


Well, no, not really. If you have a custom head/tail fade handle fade combo you like on a component, just copy/paste attributes to your other selected components. Easy.

However, you're comparing Apples to Oranges. The proper comparison would be for you to disconnect the audio (and complain about not having sync indicators, lol) Then just copy/paste your custom dissolve transitions to the the head/tail of your selected clip. Just like you do in Pr.

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:33:42 pm

[Charlie Austin] " If you have a custom head/tail fade handle fade combo you like on a component, just copy/paste attributes to your other selected components. Easy. "

well no charlie.
so let's forget copying and pasting things after the fact and concentrate on the version of a custom dissolve:

OK -so you have an audio music track you're cutting down, you make a cut or a lift say, and then at the new edit point join in the music, where you might have placed a dissolve and slid it left or right to taste... instead:

at the edit point, you are first expanding audio components, then you are selecting and modifying the fade on the outgoing clip, then selecting and modifying the fade on the incoming clip. I believe this is correct. and that is a quite serious amount of clicks.

look at it this way - if apple read this, they might be minded to move on it, because that is a lot of work for every instance?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:43:35 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "OK -so you have an audio music track you're cutting down, you make a cut or a lift say, and then at the new edit point join in the music, where you might have placed a dissolve and slid it left or right to taste... instead:"

We've moved on from the lack of asymmetric dissolves. ;-) But in you'r example it's the same workflow in x as anything, Other than the (current) lack of asymmetric dissolves. You're correct on that one detail. But save that one thing, exactly the same. And 99% of the time a centered dissolve works fine. It's not a big deal at all.

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:47:10 pm

[Charlie Austin] "And 99% of the time a centered dissolve works fine. "

Not for the job I'm doing right now! Just saying... ;)

_______________________
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

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:58:40 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "And 99% of the time a centered dissolve works fine. "

Not for the job I'm doing right now! Just saying... ;)
"


Well, since it appears you might be willing to try cutting in X if you could do this, please open the feedback form from the app and request the following:

It would be really useful to be able to customize dissolves to start or end on an edit, as well as be asymmetrical. Similar to FCP 7 etc. At least adding a "midpoint" slider to the inspector pane (like the Dip to Color "midpoint" slider) would be nice. With possibly a dissolve type checkbox - "start, end, centered."
thanks! :-)


Maybe you'll get your wish.I'd be happy if they did that for a variety of reasons... :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:14:43 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Maybe you'll get your wish.I'd be happy if they did that for a variety of reasons... :-)"

Will do! :)

_______________________
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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:06:59 pm

[Charlie Austin] "And 99% of the time a centred dissolve works fine. It's not a big deal at all.
"


charlie - with mucho respect, cutting down a commercial or any other track to a usable thirty off the bars really does demand asymmetric dissolves. given people can be singing either end of the join, or say chords start ascending inconveniently, it's basically critical to weight it left or right to fake it. It's also really important you can do it massively fast because 4/5 attempts to join music sections don't work? It's one operation that has to happen like butter.

You basically cannot be going through that X style rigamarole every time - it kills the flow of decision making. I've just tried it a few times there.

I haven't used a video dissolve in five years but a controllable audio dissolve would be critical my end - hard to see that as a one percent scenario?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:19:05 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "charlie - with mucho respect, cutting down a commercial or any other track to a usable thirty off the bars really does demand asymmetric dissolves. given people can be singing either end of the join, or say chords start ascending inconveniently, it's basically critical to weight it left or right to fake it. It's also really important you can do it massively fast because 4/5 attempts to join music sections don't work? It's one operation that has to happen like butter.

I agree that having an asymmetric dissolve transition option would be a good thing. And I missed them for the first few months I was getting into X. Not anymore. And not just because they're not there. I miss fade handles in 7/Pr. I feel like tweaking dissolves slows me down. Really. The fact it's not available in X now does not hamper my ability to create a nice sounding transition very quickly and easily. It does happen like butter. And I have clients breathing down my neck just like I always have. :-)


[Aindreas Gallagher] "You basically cannot be going through that X style rigamarole every time - it kills the flow of decision making. I've just tried it a few times there."

I believe you. I bet some of it has to do with the fact that you need to think about what you're doing. It's not second nature like when you're doing something in another NLE that you cut in day in and out. For me in X, I don't even think about the process anymore. I just do it and move on. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:42:58 pm

[Charlie Austin] "an asymmetric dissolve transition option would be a good thing. And I missed them for the first few months I was getting into X. Not anymore."

hard to see how that goes away really?

[Charlie Austin] "I bet some of it has to do with the fact that you need to think about what you're doing."

no mate. In X I'm effectively doing around seven to eight very clicky things there - where I would be naturally doing one to two (if you count sliding the transition).

That scenario in X is just flat out not very workable.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:56:18 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Charlie Austin] "an asymmetric dissolve transition option would be a good thing. And I missed them for the first few months I was getting into X. Not anymore."

hard to see how that goes away really?
"


It does. At least for me.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "no mate. In X I'm effectively doing around seven to eight very clicky things there - where I would be naturally doing one to two (if you count sliding the transition)."

To make an A/B fade using fade handles? That does seem like a lot. Hold on... Takes me 2-4, maybe a right click to change the curve for good measure.

I get that adding a dissolve is quick and easy. I can do it in X. Adding a custom, asymmetric dissolve in 7/Pr takes about the same amount of time as dragging a couple fade handles in X, no matter the ultimate click amount difference. You need to click the mouse to scrub the clip right? Maybe you need to solo the A/B tracks in a busy mix? I do too, but I don't need to click anything to do so. It all evens out. You prefer the FCP 7/Pr method. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't.

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

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: This should settle it once and for all,,,
on Aug 5, 2014 at 10:01:54 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02:54 pm

Let's make this easier... :-)







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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 10:42:55 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Takes me 2-4, maybe a right click to change the curve for good measure. "

No. I really did count it charlie. ;) after the expand audio request, then clicking on the fade handle trims and adjusting for both overlapping clips - that's no 2 to 4 keystrokes. It's a mess of finnicky adjustment for what should be a basic decision mate. never any harm admitting it.

I nearly think you'd feel better if you outright vocalise there's a bit of a problem there.

because well, some bits of FCPX are a little sickly, feverish even, and may need a cure?







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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 11:02:52 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "No. I really did count it charlie. ;) after the expand audio request, then clicking on the fade handle trims and adjusting for both overlapping clips - that's no 2 to 4 keystrokes. It's a mess of finnicky adjustment for what should be a basic decision mate. never any harm admitting it. "

i counted too. You sure you weren't using some weird European metric counting or something? :-D

My audio's always expanded in the primary so... skim to edit point, 1 or 2 keystrokes (no clicking needed) to extend A/B handle(s) as needed, 2 fade handle adjustments (mouse click/drag). Done. Unless I mess with the curves, which i assume you'd be doing as well if you needed to right? Don't get me wrong, I'll use dissolves sometimes too. But even if they were asymmetric I'd still use fade handles. Nothing to admit I'm afraid. :-)

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I nearly think you'd feel better if you outright vocalise there's a bit of a problem there.

because well, some bits of FCPX are a little sickly, feverish even, and may need a cure?"


I'm pretty sure I've never claimed FCP X was all skittles and unicorns, always room/need for improvement. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 12:06:14 am

[Charlie Austin] "My audio's always expanded in the primary so... skim to edit point, 1 or 2 keystrokes (no clicking needed) to extend A/B handle(s) as needed, 2 fade handle adjustments (mouse click/drag). Done."

OK - but we're not actually talking about audio adjustments to a primary storyline AV element?

So the case is editing down a music track.
when you are editing down the track:

how are you "skimming to edit point, 1 or 2 keystrokes (no clicking needed) to extend A/B handle(s) as needed, "

I'm messing around with X right now. how are you doing this?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 2:16:52 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "how are you "skimming to edit point, 1 or 2 keystrokes (no clicking needed) to extend A/B handle(s) as needed, "

I'm messing around with X right now. how are you doing this?"


So, I was gonna post a step by step thing, and then had an epiphany... If you really like just hitting CMD T to use dissolves, and you need an asymmetric cross, you actually can do it pretty easily. Here:

dissolvy thing



Istill wouldn't do it like this, it's faster for me to just mess with connected clips, but there ya go... :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 11:52:51 am

I'm not too sure why you went about it that way including the default dissolve, but all that still seems like quite a few clicks, handle drags, yet more clicks... and it seemed to take a while to put together? Again, I can't believe you're doing all that every single time. It seems bananas! :)

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:56:50 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but all that still seems like quite a few clicks, handle drags, yet more clicks... and it seemed to take a while to put together?"

And I can get the exact same result... in a single key press! ;D

_______________________
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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 2:43:04 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "at the edit point, you are first expanding audio components, then you are selecting and modifying the fade on the outgoing clip, then selecting and modifying the fade on the incoming clip. I believe this is correct. and that is a quite serious amount of clicks."

The easy way to do this is to simply use shortcuts to select the edges of the clip.

At the cut point, Shift left bracket then shift right bracket will both expand the clip and select the edge.

comma/period will trim the clip one frame per key press, add shift and that will trim the clip 10 frames, option will let you nudge in subframes.

Add a fade handle.

Then shift left or right bracket (to select the other side), comma/period, add fade handle.

Back slash selects both sides of the cut point, and shift brackets will get you back down to the left/right edge.

I know what you'll say, it's too many steps. Well, it's how it works for now, and for me, it goes very quick if I need it.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 11:47:14 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I know what you'll say, it's too many steps."

well... yes. you are kind of playing the piano there to get an adjustable audio dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:20:58 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "well... yes. you are kind of playing the piano there to get an adjustable audio dissolve."

Which is why you'd probably just do it with a fe mouse click/drags, You can also slide the dissolve around and see the A/B waveforms live, which might be kind of useful. Or just close it up and drag it around.

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/32075

More better than a canned asymmetric dissolve in some ways, maybe less better in others. ;-) It's a wash to me. Bottom line is that if you need it, it's easily do-able.

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 6:17:31 pm

[Charlie Austin] " It's a wash to me. "

but of course - just so long as you clearly and formally acknowledge that the X dissolve is basically useless, and your workaround, as in the video you posted there, involves close to ten times as many steps. which seems a bit of a nightmare frankly.
but hey, it works for you - in the end that's the important thing.

see how hard was that? ;)

http://i.imgur.com/574uWB1.jpg

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 7:01:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but of course - just so long as you clearly and formally acknowledge that the X dissolve is basically useless, "

No, it turns out it's the same as a dissolve in anything else. I found this whole discussion fairly ridiculous, but couldn't really articulate why. Now I can.

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/72179

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

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 7:16:57 pm

jesus you're funny charlie. So there's no such thing as an asymmetrical dissolve now. well, I use something that looks a lot like it, and you take 10-15 keystrokes and numerous edit trims, fade handles etc, to arrive at the same point.

you poor soul. you really have got the X religion fever bad haven't you?? ;)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 7:25:19 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "jesus you're funny charlie. So there's no such thing as an asymmetrical dissolve now. well, I use something that looks a lot like it,"

Looks like it being the operative word. Read the post. Think about it. An asymmetric dissolve effect does not exist. This has nothing to do with FCP X, it's math. :-)

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

~ 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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:22:57 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "well... yes. you are kind of playing the piano there to get an adjustable audio dissolve."

I see. So now FCPX is too sophisticated! Things really have come full circle!

I'm kidding with you, passive-agressively.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 6, 2014 at 6:23:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I know what you'll say, it's too many steps. Well, it's how it works for now, and for me, it goes very quick if I need it."

It also gives you more control working with fade handles as you can tweak the lengths individually. When cutting two clips of music together, I'm not sure I've ever had equal fade lengths on each side. But maybe, being a musician, I'm more finicky than most.



Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:36:31 pm

[Charlie Austin] "nd, on topic, I can't believe anyone would want to work in a system where you had to click and hold a button and drag the mouse to scrub, or worse, require you to click somewhere or something to solo a clip to scrub it."

Of course if your cursor is over either the source monitor or program monitor then a two finger swipe across the back of the mouse or on the trackpad is a MUCH more accurate way to find exactly what you're looking for.


Return to posts index

David Howard
Re: A Lazy Editor's Audio Workflow
on Sep 11, 2014 at 3:10:26 am

I find fcpx really good with audio

Redefined Media

Video Production Sydney


Return to posts index

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