FORUMS: list search recent posts

The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Herb Sevush
The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 2:03:44 pm

Excuse the snarky thread title, I'm just trying to get your attention.

As part of a previous thread a claim was made that the implementation of multicam editing was better on FCPX than with any other system. What might surprise some of my less ardent admirers is that until recently I believed this to be true. When X finally unveiled it's multicam I was very impressed - built in sync by waveform, ability to combine different clips into one angle, ability to add effects to an angle and have it passed through to an edited timeline. As a multicam editor working in Legacy I was impressed and somewhat envious to the point where there was a moment where I seriously considering downloading the X trial. Fortunately that moment passed.

However when I finally switched to Ppro I noticed that it too could sync via waveform, consolidate clips into an angle, add effects to angles, add additional angles after editing had begun, even switch an angle from HD to 4K at any point in the edit.

But maybe I'm missing something. Maybe there are aspects to cutting multicam in X that are clearly superior in it's design. So I invite you to enlighten me on what you see as the strengths of multicam in X. This is not an argument thread, this is an opportunity for learning, both about X and about multicam in PPro, and other NLE systems as they come up.

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


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 3:08:01 pm

Herb...you just don't "get it." If you're still plunking multicam onto "tracks" ... then you are a long beaked dinosaur.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 3:15:12 pm

[Daniel Frome] "Herb...you just don't "get it." If you're still plunking multicam onto "tracks" ... then you are a long beaked dinosaur."

Daniel, while I appreciate the snark, I would really like this thread to be about learning. Teach my something about any NLE's multicam system, or be gone.

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


Return to posts index


Daniel Frome
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 3:19:36 pm
Last Edited By Daniel Frome on Jan 9, 2015 at 3:20:31 pm

Very well Herb. Your snarky title was the inspiration, and I apologize for following suit.

There does not seem to be any large functional difference between Ppro and FCPX's abilities here. FCPX had these capabilities first, which is likely what gave it the (rightfully so) "superior" claim. However, as they always seem to do, Adobe has caught up nicely.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 3:47:25 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But maybe I'm missing something. Maybe there are aspects to cutting multicam in X that are clearly superior in it's design. So I invite you to enlighten me on what you see as the strengths of multicam in X. This is not an argument thread, this is an opportunity for learning, both about X and about multicam in PPro, and other NLE systems as they come up."

I own my multicam. You're just renting yours. :)

Beyond that, I assumed that everyone had rebuilt their multicam (albeit two years later in the case of Premiere) to the standards set by FCP X. Apparently Premiere is still working on a functional scrubbing function in the timeline, but I see it works fairly well on thumbnails.

But I used to assume that Premiere was always just as good as FCP legacy, and just that it hadn't won support. But when CS6 came around and 7 had been EOL'd, I found that, with the exception of format support, it was still lagging behind 7 in feature parity. Mainly in aspects of media management and trimming and other minor mundane tasks that are needed daily. (X is still playing catchup in many of these areas too). But with CC I think it seemed corrected and I hear good things about their multi-cam. I haven't heard that it's better than X, but the general feeling that I get through the grapevine is that it works just fine.

But I really take issue with the whole subscription thing. Not so much the cost. Just the ideology. So I'm doing whatever I can do to find ways around it. Not to save money. But to keep from being sucked in like a bad relationship that's hard to get out of because you've become so co-dependent. I have my CS5 master collection for most things Adobe (theres a fairly useless Premiere in there), Motion, FCP X and I rent Adobe CC when I have to for newer AE stuff. No hard feelings Adobe, we've just grown apart.

So back on track with Multi cam, it sounds like you'd be better off sharing the aspect of Adobe's multicam since I don't get the feeing here that many here are using it. I didn't use 7s much. But I jumped on X's and it seemed to do just what a multicam should. I do know the big complaint is that you can't finalize an edit. IOW you can't turn it into straight cuts to better facilitate XMLing it to other apps or media management. I ASSUME that you can do that in Premiere since it's a much more mature NLE. But maybe not. I personally have had an issue with FCP X's multicams's inability to finalize in a music video. I synced up all the different camera angles to the different parts of the song. Basically, a different camera angle for different takes. As well, for generic shots, I put different options in the different angles. That made for a lot of different angles. 10-14 maybe. But the problem arose with the second version. It was a corporate parody, so the first version was a one off promoting something, then the second version was 65% the same, with different lyrics for different parts to make it more generic. So I duplicated my sequence and you come to realize that if you change anything in that multicam, it's going to change the original version. IOW you can't delete an angle or change what's in an angle. And you can't duplicate the multicam itself. Well, you CAN duplicate the multicam in the bin, but now you're starting from scratch with the edits of the multicam which only exist in a sequence. There's no way to tell the multicam in a new sequence to relink to a different multicam like you can with a compound clip. If there is it wasn't obvious. With a compound clip you can duplicate it and reference it to a new master clip. I very used to doing that in AE with nested comps when you duplicate a version of a project. Can't seem to do that with multicam. At least if I could finalize an edit I'd still have a tweakable editable final version.

So I had to add another 10 angles or so to the existing multicam so as not to mess up the first version, and to reuse what I already had. Perhaps I could have duplicated the whole library itself, but now that's just getting messy. I ended up with a multicam that supports two versions of the video with 25 angles or so. A little unwieldy. And don't forget the multicam had to support two versions of the FINAL video. There were multiple incremental versions along the way for each. Say, 5. So really the one multicam had to support 10 versions of one video. So if someone wanted me to change a shot to a shot that didn't exist at that point in the multicam on another angle, I had to add an angle or destroy a previous version by changing the shot on that angle. So all the angles on the multicam actually represented all the changes of the videos like a big long undo list. All because I couldn't reference a new master multicam.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 4:25:28 pm

[Bret Williams] "I own my multicam. You're just renting yours."

Last nite I saw a spot on the news where a financial analyst was making the case that in the modern world renting a house is smarter than buying one. For myself, I prefer owning. I'm not fond of the subscription model, but for me it's a business decision, not a morality play.

[Bret Williams] "Beyond that, I assumed that everyone had rebuilt their multicam (albeit two years later in the case of Premiere) to the standards set by FCP X."

You know what they say about assumptions.

[Bret Williams] "I used to assume that Premiere was always just as good as FCP legacy"

Having used Ppro since version 1, I can tell you that was not the case.

[Bret Williams] " But when CS6 came around and 7 had been EOL'd, I found that, with the exception of format support, it was still lagging behind 7 in feature parity."

Yes. But they have made huge strides since version 6. I would not have switched to PPro if version 6 was my only option.

[Bret Williams] "But with CC I think it seemed corrected and I hear good things about their multi-cam. I haven't heard that it's better than X, but the general feeling that I get through the grapevine is that it works just fine."

Which is what this thread is designed to explore. I believe there are some real differences between the various implementations but I don't think there's any clear cut advantage for either one. I'm not sure if Avid's multicam, which has always been excellent, has kept up with the other two, and I'd love to hear from some Avid editor's about that comparison.

[Bret Williams] " I do know the big complaint is that you can't finalize an edit. IOW you can't turn it into straight cuts to better facilitate XMLing it to other apps or media management."

That is something you can do with Ppro or though it is a non-reversible photoshop type flattening that makes it less valuable than Legacy's ability to go back and forth between multicam mode and straight cuts with a click of a mouse button. The problem with non -reversible flattening is say you want to export for a color grade. After the grade is finished there is no way to make any further multicam adjustments in case of last minute changes. Best procedure is to duplicate your timeline before flattening it to protect yourself from that sort of situation, but still not as flexible as the Legacy way.

[Bret Williams] " I personally have had an issue with FCP X's multicams's inability to finalize in a music video."

I have to say you lost me totally in your description here. You needed to have different versions of a music video - I get that. The different versions apparently shared some angles but also each needed some different angles as well. In order to use portions of one timeline to create a second version you chose to add those additional angles to the master multicam. I got that as well, and yes I can see how that might proliferate the number of angles in that multicam clip and make it a bit unwieldy. But I don't understand the bit about cutting one version affecting another version. The various versions should be related to the same multicam but not to each other, I don't see why after duplicating version 1 to make version 2, later changes in version 1 would make changes in version2. Can you clarify ?

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


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:17:45 pm

I was just saying changes to v2 could affect v1 if you weren't careful. For example if I just REPLACED an angle with the different chorus angle, well, v1 would now have v2's chorus. So, if I had 15 angle options for a chorus in v1, and v2 used the same multicam, then any changes in v2 needed to be in additional angles.

BUT! James pointed out a feature that I should have used. I should have made a snapshot of the project - a year old feature in FCP X where instead of duplicating the sequence, you make a snapshot, which locks everything in time. And compounds or multi cams (I assume) get locked to their own version. Kinda like nests in FCP 7 when you duplicate the sequence. Those nests no longer link to anything in the bin, they exist only within the timeline.

So you should be able to snapshot v1, then open the snapshot and start editing it as version 2 as the multicam should now be it's own entity.

So all is well. Still, flattening a multicam would be nice.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:31:24 pm

Here's a screenshot. Not quite as crazy as I remembered, but still a mess. What I ended up doing, to keep things manageable, was instead of adding every change to a new angle, I put changes into an open gap in the timeline wherever possible, foregoing any sort of organization that was there with v1 so that I'd have less angles to deal with overall. So were angle 5 might have been take 4 in the first video, an open gap in that angle may have been filled with some broll or a different take of a verse in version 2. So that angle didn't pertain to any particular take or angle or camera in any way by the end. If the individual angles had any sort of organization like that, the final would have had 20-30 angles instead of 10. It made sense that week. But now it just looks like a mess. Oh, every single shot had to be synced by hand even though they recorded boom box audio on camera. My guess is the boom box played at a different speed. Couldn't get one single shot to match with the CD audio. Looking back, I'd suggest the WHOLE song be recorded in the field over the camera audio and THAT be the master audio for the edit. THEN, once synced, swap that for the CD audio.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:09:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "if Avid's multicam, which has always been excellent, has kept up with the other two, and I'd love to hear from some Avid editor's about that comparison."

Avid's multicam is unchanged so in terms of initially creating the multicam and tweaking it after creation Avid's implementation lags way, w-a-y behind PPro and FCP X. Using something like PluralEyes can help out with the initial sync but overall PPro and X require much less time and effort to get things up and running.


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:05:49 pm

"So I duplicated my sequence and you come to realize that if you change anything in that multicam, it's going to change the original version".

I had no idea you could not duplicate a Multicam project and not make changes without it affecting the original. Is that what you are saying? Even as a snapshot?


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:09:01 pm

That is an excellent suggestion/idea. I think that would be the solution. This was before I was using snapshots and realized their usefulness. I use them now assume that would work in the same way it locks in a compound clip. Someone should test it for me. :)


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:42:23 pm

That is an excellent suggestion/idea. I think that would be the solution. This was before I was using snapshots and realized their usefulness. I use them now assume that would work in the same way it locks in a compound clip. Someone should test it for me. :

It's nice to occasionally be able to contribute. Would copying and pasting the project be any different to a basic duplicate? (sorry I am going off topic a bit))


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:50:14 pm

Any copying, pasting, duplicating of a project or elements retains all connections to the master clip and multi cam or compound. It can bite you in the ... If you're not careful. For example I do a lot of compounds inside compounds for graphics like a product screen with details and text animation. I might have to do that same treatment 3 or 4 times in the same video. So Ill duplicate the compound and choose reference new parent clip, then open it and choose the inner compound and choose reference new parent clip again and again and again for each nested compound. If you've ever done AE work you probably get it. It becomes second nature until someone distracts you and you screw up a previous video or part of a video.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 10:50:35 am

Someone should test it for me. :)

Yes "Duplicate as Snapshot" keeps it immune from any changes you make to the original project in the angle editor.

Which makes me think with Multicam one should always use the snapshot command probably.

I had no idea it worked like that thanks.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 10:32:35 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jan 12, 2015 at 10:33:04 am

[James Ewart] "I had no idea you could not duplicate a Multicam project and not make changes without it affecting the original. "

You can, and should of course in a case like that, since you're *always* working with the master when you make any changes to it. Mind you, within the angle editor. Changes to it in the project won't of course effect any other instances of the MC elsewhere. But, yes, that's what the "Reference New Parent Clip" command in the Clip menu is for, which essentially duplicates the selected MC in the Event and replaces it in the project. The exact same goes for compound clips btw.

Tip: notice the displayed path at the top of the project window when you open either a multicam or compound. It will always start in the EVENT, not the project.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 6:52:28 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "But, yes, that's what the "Reference New Parent Clip" command in the Clip menu is for, which essentially duplicates the selected MC in the Event and replaces it in the project. The exact same goes for compound clips btw."

That does not work for Multicam projects if that is what you are suggesting. Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick?


Return to posts index

James Villeneuve
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:14:02 pm

Hey Bret,

In regards to your problem with the single multicam reference across different timelines...

I think I know how you could deal with that. I came across your 'multicam problem' in a different situation. I was working on a project with someone. We had identical libraries and we were sending each other xmls of our work. But things got weird when he updated a multicam with some new angles and then used it on a new timeline. When he sent me that timeline/xml and I imported it... the multicam clip on his new timeline didn't have his added angles. I realized his xml was still referencing the original multicam clip in my library. So the first multicam was the only thing that would register. His updated multicam clip was confused by FCPX with the older one. SO, I managed to fix that problem, thusly...

what I did was create a new, empty library and imported the xml into that one. The project popped in and was, of course, off line. Then, I created a second, empty event in the new library. I dragged the offline project into the new library. for some wonderful reason, when you do that, the second event now displays all the media used in that offline project, INCLUDING the multicam in question. Well, I renamed that multicam clip as Version two. Then I dragged that second empty event BACK INTO the original library with all the media. Everything reconnected instantly and I had a second, separate updated multicam clip in the event browser.

I think if you had exported an xml of your music video project each time you needed to create an alternate multicam version and followed those steps, you'd have saved yourself that painful work around. I know what I just described seems long and drawn out, but it only takes a minute to do once you figure it out.

If you get a chance, test it out. I'm wondering if I just got lucky with my solution or it is something that could help you with your very specific multicam riddle.

Good Luck!

James.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:59:14 pm

Totally good stuff. And I do a bit of XML in rough cuts with the client so Im familiar. Part of the issue I also had was that both videos were encountering changes at once. So one was a variation of the other. So at least sharing the same multiccam meant if something changed that was the same in both, it could be changed in both fairly easily.

In any case, it's all an issue with multicam to be taken into consideration early on. A simple flattening command would provide a fairly obvious fix, even if a few changes trickled in after.


Return to posts index

James Villeneuve
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:20:41 pm

I agree that flattening multicam would be awesome.

But I must ask... are you saying that you would make editorial changes one project (timeline) - and those changes would be reflected on the other project (timeline)? If so, that's crazy! Or maybe you were editing a compound clip? Sorry to be a bother, but I'm really curious to see if that was the case or I'm misunderstanding...


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:25:34 pm

It's not crazy. A multiccam clip works just like a compound. So if you duplicate a timeline that has a multiccam, then make changes in the angle editor, it's going to affect all instances of that multicam. In some situations those changes might be very welcome across the board like color correction. But swapping out visuals of one set of lyrics for another to do an alternate version would not be since it would screw up the original version


Return to posts index

James Villeneuve
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:39:55 pm

Thanks for clarifying. Yes. I am aware that multicam is like a compound sequence. For a second I wasn't sure if that's what you were talking about. So, with that cleared up, then the rather wordy workaround response I originally gave you would help you with that if you wanted to make multicam clip changes for one sequence but not have it affect the other. ALRIGHTY THEN!

Good chatting with you and I hope that little workaround helps you out sometime in the future.

In regards to the original poster's question about the advantage of multicam in FCPX vs other software:

As an editor who spent 10 years working in media composer and FCP Legacy before trying X just for fun (and then falling in love with it) I would say this - I can't imagine that any one of the major NLE systems is going to be THAT much more advantageous than the other. I'm sure each person can find what works for their workflows. I would frame my answer as follows...

It doesn't matter to me if the multicam function on FCPX isn't perfectly suited to my needs. I think that any shortcomings it might have are offset by all the other awesome shit in that program (especially the new editing paradigm - metadata/organization - roles). So, no matter what you find out from this very knowledgable crowd, I don't think you should base any final NLE decisions on just that one function. I'm sorry I don't have anything more helpful than that to add. I'm just not that familiar with the minutia of the multicam functions of the major NLEs.

If anyone else would like me to tell them how to live their lives, I'm here all night! Try the veal!

James.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 7:49:57 pm

[James Villeneuve] "It doesn't matter to me if the multicam function on FCPX isn't perfectly suited to my needs. I think that any shortcomings it might have are offset by all the other awesome shit in that program (especially the new editing paradigm - metadata/organization - roles). So, no matter what you find out from this very knowledgable crowd, I don't think you should base any final NLE decisions on just that one function."

In my case I cut multicam 95% of the time, so it does influence my decisions strongly. From everything I understand Ppro and X are fairly equivalent in terms of multicam, each with slightly different strengths and weaknesses, so a choice between them comes down to "other awesome shit" and how you define that.

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


Return to posts index

James Villeneuve
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 2:59:05 am

Yep. The 'awesome shit' in FCPX for me had little to do with multicam for me at first but I just had a couple of great experiences with it so it was added to the pile. Maybe it would be helpful for you for me to describe my experience...

A co-editor of mine put together a four cam multicam very rough cut of cockpit footage from an aerobatic flight. I cut the flight down and edited cockpit conversations so it was more engaging. When I had a length of multiclip on the timeline I would play through the content and when I wanted to switch camera I would simply press a number key that corresponded to the video angle (1,2,3 or 4). You can do it on the fly or by right clicking. You can also change audio angles independently of picture, obviously. On the timeline I'm able to disable or enable any number of audio tracks from within the multicam clip. I colour corrected the gopro shots inside of the multicam clip rather than shot by shot on the timeline. It wasn't for broadcast so I didn't have to worry about a multitude of issues that you worry about for your television work.

In short, my experience was probably comparable to someone using Premiere. Except for all the other awesome shit. Someone like you who has such a specific need/workflow with multicam needs to try both programs (do a 30 second multicam project on each program). I'd love to hear you tell me what the pros and cons are of each NLE's multicam process because you'd probably be much better equipped to identify the pertinent issues with each program....

So, I'll just wait for you to get those 30 second projects done. Take your time. I'm patient.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:40:48 pm

[Bret Williams] "It's not crazy. A multiccam clip works just like a compound. "

I worked in PPro (not X) but the handling of the multicam seems very similar and this tripped me up on the first project I did in PPro. I came in one day and all my edits from this one source were all off in the timeline. It was driving me nuts until the producer mentioned that he found a missing camera from early that day and added it to the existing multicam (thus shoving every down the multicam timeline to make room for it). That's when it really dawned on me that the multicam was basically a nest (to use a FCP 7 term). Which can be really good in some situations and really bad in others.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 7:52:57 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " I came in one day and all my edits from this one source were all off in the timeline. It was driving me nuts until the producer mentioned that he found a missing camera from early that day and added it to the existing multicam (thus shoving every down the multicam timeline to make room for it)."

Thus it was and forever shall be until they come up with an idiot proofing keyboard shortcut.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 4:27:05 pm

I've been looking at some of the Adobe tutorials and it (the interface) looks rather complicated to me (but so foes 7 now). In PP do you have an "Angle Editor" as such, like in FCPX? Double click on Multicam sequence and it takes you to another timeline with all your synched up cameras for fine tuning sync?

One of the great features is to use Multicam for multi take single camera shoots where you can approximate sync and then and nudge them around in the angle editor. This of course does not apply to you Herb.

Is the truth that there really isn't much in it?

I can't even remember how Multicam worked in Legacy and why I prefer X.

The bottom line is I understand why you would stick with something more familiar as I did.

But I have yet to hear from anybody who has stuck with FCPX and learnt its "new way" (yes time consuming) who has not had a light bulb moment and thought "this makes a lot of sense" despite the odd idiosyncrasy. And then you just don't wanna go back.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 4:52:01 pm

[James Ewart] " In PP do you have an "Angle Editor" as such, like in FCPX? Double click on Multicam sequence and it takes you to another timeline with all your synched up cameras for fine tuning sync?"

Yes. In Ppro the multicam sequence is a timeline that uses variations on nesting behavior to perform it's magic in the final editing timeline. At any point you can open up the original multicam source timeline and make any adjustment to the clips that you can do in a regular timeline - nudge the clips, combine clips from different tracks onto a single track, add filters to audio or video, add media at any point in your edit - and all your changes to the multicam source timeline will flow thru to any edit's you've already made using that source as well as any future edits.

It is also possible to take a normal timeline and turn it into a multicam source - this becomes valuable if you ever use Plural Eyes to automate the creation of a multicam timeline when your individual sources have lots of stops and goes. Without Plural Eyes you have to consolidate the tracks manually.

[James Ewart] "But I have yet to hear from anybody who has stuck with FCPX and learnt its "new way" (yes time consuming) who has not had a light bulb moment and thought "this makes a lot of sense" despite the odd idiosyncrasy. And then you just don't wanna go back."

That's sort of self defining though isn't it. I know editors who gave what they thought was a reasonable amount of time to learning X who never did like it and don't use it. But by definition they didn't stick with it.

I don't want this thread to get bogged down in this sort of dialogue. In this thread I'm asking for someone to show me how X can help me improve my efficiency in cutting multicam. In return I will endeavor to explain how other systems might improve your multicam work. Let's keep it simple and open to all possibilities.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 4:55:58 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:01:18 pm

I get you.

I'm not qualified to proffer an opinion but will read with interest thanks.

Apart from in FCPX every video cut in a Multicam clip is also an audio cut and there is nothing you can do about it apart form drag out the audio from one of the clips containing your master audio and deleting the rest. So if PP just cuts the video and leaves no invisible edits in the audio that would be one to you.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:09:01 pm

[Herb Sevush] " In this thread I'm asking for someone to show me how X can help me improve my efficiency in cutting multicam. "

Why don't you buy it and try it for yourself? I seem to remember Aindreas all up in my sh** when I asked a similar question about Premiere CC. So I've got the free trial and will see for myself. You should too.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 5:30:11 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Why don't you buy it and try it for yourself?"

I'm not the kind of editor that bounces between different systems - one day on Legacy, the next on FCPX, the next on Avid. I'm amazed at people who have that ability. For me I need complete immersion in order to internalize the command structure and not let the tools get in the way of the editing. For this reason I'm very cautious and slow to change NLE's, but when I do it's all in - to the extant that within a few months I find it hard to go back to whatever i had been editing on previously, no matter how long I had done it before. For that reason I don't "try out" anything - I research and learn as much as I can and then commit.

This thread is an opportunity for learning about the strengths of different tools and workflows, centered around multicam. It might help someone decide which tool might be best for them, it might teach them new techniques with the tools they are presently using.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:19:30 pm

I haven't done a lot of mcam in X, but two things that bother me are: 1) the fact that audio gets cut with every edit (you have to detach/connect if you want one clean track of audio), and 2) you cannot collapse the mcam clips once you are done.

I have been doing a lot in PPro and I like it. However, one issue I see is that sizing has issues. For example, I do this at a TV station (as a freelancer) and they shoot 1080 and cut 720 for air. This gives them the ability to reframe/resize. While cutting, it all looks right. But once you go back into the 720p sequence to work with the mcam, the sizing isn't right. I'm not sure how X deals with that same situation.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:43:34 pm

[Oliver Peters] "But once you go back into the 720p sequence to work with the mcam, the sizing isn't right"

I have this issue when I use 4K material in a multicam that is being cut into a 1080 timeline. My solution is to copy the 4K clip to a higher track then flatten it, and then you can resize normally while having the multicam link on the track below. Not optimal, but it works. In truth I always have a 1080 version of all my 4K material and put them both in the multicam source. I do all my cutting with the 1080 angle, then replace with the 4k source and flatten only when I need it. I realize not everyone has the time or inclination to transcode the duplicate angle, but either way it's workable.

[Oliver Peters] "I haven't done a lot of mcam in X, but two things that bother me are: 1) the fact that audio gets cut with every edit (you have to detach/connect if you want one clean track of audio),"

Which leads me to the question - how easy is it to switch audio sources independent of switching video, assuming you have different audio recorded to different channels on all your cameras? Legacy was very good at handling this, since the multicam mode could be A/V, video only or audio only - although this would not let you switch between different channels from the same camera - I would match back to the original source for that. Ppro has an audio follow video function, but at the moment you have to change video angles to change audio angles, which is a PITA, and like legacy it does not allow you to switch channels without matching back. How is this handled in X?

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:54:13 pm

You can change audio angles in the inspector simply by unchecking the channels you don't want and the the ones you do want. You can also "expand audio components in the timeline" which will drop down all your audio sources in a track like manner. You can make volume adjustments or mute channels on a clip by clip basis.

You can also right click and change audio angles or program it to a hotkey.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 7:03:03 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jan 9, 2015 at 7:13:50 pm

You can change audio angles in the inspector simply by unchecking the channels you don't want and the the ones you do want.

That does not get rid of the fact that FCPX edits audio on every cut in a Multicam project/sequence (I am increasing bored with having to translate terms for the benefit of apple).

It should not put invisible audio edits in the audio track that has been selected if you select video only for cuts.

Massive flaw.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:57:29 pm

You are using 4K footage?

What are your deliverables?

Just asking


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 8:14:36 pm

[James Ewart] "You are using 4K footage?

What are your deliverables?"


Deliverables are 1080p30 ProRes 422. Anything we shoot in 4K is for resizing purposes - either when someone is doing a single person demo direct to camera and we want the option to create a CU from the master shot or when we are out in the field doing small crew interviews, also to pull CU's from wide OTS shots.

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:49:33 pm

A disadvantage on the X side is that you cannot stabilize a multi cam clip on the timeline (storyline) Nor can you slow it down and use optical flow. If you use the put audio effects on clips in the nest (angle editor) you will hear a cut on every edit on your timeline.

An advantage is the implementation is really simple and easy to learn. It scrubs better than PP and the way it cuts angles makes more sense than how PP does it IMO. The setup process for PP's Multicam when using multiple start stop clips is a little weirder to me. But I just have to get used to it. I'm still not confident on how the nesting works and adding angles after the fact in PP. X's implementation is so straight forward, you could figure it all that out fairly easily.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 6:59:04 pm

[David Powell] "I'm still not confident on how the nesting works and adding angles after the fact in PP. X's implementation is so straight forward, you could figure it all that out fairly easily."

Unfortunately I haven't used X so I can't act as a translator, but I cut a web series that was 99% multicam last year using PPro CC and overall the experience was wonderful. I know nesting in FCP 7 could be dangerous but that's far from the case in PPro and adding angles after the fact is as simple as opening up the nest, adding in the new video/angle, then getting back to editing.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 8:10:25 pm

[David Powell] " the way it cuts angles makes more sense than how PP does it IMO."

Can you describe. I've worked with many NLE's and they all use a variation on one set of keystrokes to cut to a new angle and a modified set of those keystrokes to do a replace angle. Most also use some sort of mouse clicking to accomplish the same thing, but this is a waste of efficiency IMO. How does it differ in X?

[David Powell] " The setup process for PP's Multicam when using multiple start stop clips is a little weirder to me. But I just have to get used to it. I'm still not confident on how the nesting works and adding angles after the fact in PP. X's implementation is so straight forward, you could figure it all that out fairly easily."

The nesting in Ppro couldn't be simpler - right click on a multicam clip in the browser (or selct it and hit OPt+Cmd O) and choose open in timeline. There's the nest and it looks and acts like any other timeline you have. You want to add an angle - put a clip on an empty track. You want to replace an angle - put the new clip on the track of the angle you want to replace. Everything about the multicam timeline is the same as a standard timeline. In fact there is a way to take a normal timeline and turn it into a multicam source timeline.

With multiple start stop clips, the timeline puts each clip on a separate track, just like Legacy used to do. To consolidate, just drag all the camera 1 clips onto a single track, being careful not to move them out of sync, and do the same with all other clips, each track representing a different angle.

If you have Plural Eyes, you can just throw all the clips from each angle on the same track and then have plural eyes sync them for you, then take the sunc timeline and turn it into a multicam source - voila, automated mulitcam timeline from multiple start stop sources. It would be nice if this could be done from within Ppro, but unlike Legacy there is no "camera angle" metadata in Ppro to align the clips with. I've requested it, but I don't think it's on the horizon.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 8:14:14 pm

[Herb Sevush] "With multiple start stop clips, the timeline puts each clip on a separate track, just like Legacy used to do. To consolidate, just drag all the camera 1 clips onto a single track, being careful not to move them out of sync, and do the same with all other clips, each track representing a different angle."

FCPX Puts them all on one track (most of the time!) which is good


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 8:47:56 pm

[Steve Connor] "FCPX Puts them all on one track (most of the time!) which is good"

Is there some sort of "camera angle" metadata that you assign to the various clips that enables this?

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


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 1:41:38 am
Last Edited By Mathieu Ghekiere on Jan 10, 2015 at 1:42:25 am

Hi Herb,

to answer your question, YES, there is a Camera Angle in the Inspector.
So you can select a bunch of clips, and in the Inspector give them a number or a letter or a name, under the Camera Angle metadata field.

If you then make your multicam clip, you can have an Automatic option of Angle Ordering.
Then it puts clips from the same Angle on the same 'track' in the Angle editor.
It's pretty nice. Can't compare with Premiere Pro though.

A good experience I had was with making Compound Clips first, because I was working with a blue key interview. Both cameras needed a seperate background.
We made Compound Clips with the 3 clips having the different background. Then selecting those 2 compound clips and making a Multicam clip.

So a Multicam clip with 3 angles, all 3 blue keyed, with different (motion!) background on them. All Prores. It all played back nicely.

Regards,


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 8:29:55 pm

[Herb Sevush] " It would be nice if this could be done from within Ppro, but unlike Legacy there is no "camera angle" metadata in Ppro to align the clips with. I've requested it, but I don't think it's on the horizon."

A request I have officially submitted too. I hope it's on the horizon because it seems like such a doable thing (says the guy that doesn't code).


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 7:13:56 pm

[Oliver Peters] "they shoot 1080 and cut 720 for air"

That explains why a lot of news is soft. They do realize that it all ends up on a 1080TV in the end, right?

[Oliver Peters] "1) the fact that audio gets cut with every edit (you have to detach/connect if you want one clean track of audio"

This has never been and issue/consideration for me. True, there is a cut in the audio, but does that really matter? If you're not switching audio angles, then the audio is still just one long audio track with an invisible edit. Gives the ability to tweak clips level if needed. And if you want, you could just open up the audio components on the first track and drag it out and turn off (v) the other clips audio components.Then you could keyframe the audio track if you prefer I guess. One long audio track. Still connected.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 7:19:56 pm

[Bret Williams] "That explains why a lot of news is soft. They do realize that it all ends up on a 1080TV in the end, right? "

ABC and FOX broadcast 720p60 while CBS and NBC are 1080i60, AFAIK. Not a lot of overall difference between the two in terms of quality (especially in motion). Personally, I'd rather do 720p60 as I find interlacing much more problematic.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 7:28:14 pm

I know. But it's always a mental debate in my mind whether blowing something up in a 720p timeline because you can is going to look good on a 1080tv knowing that it's going to get blown up again. It shouldn't, because the blow in 720p is a pixel for pixel thing, but it still seems to lose something. Logically I know it shouldn't lose anymore than the 720 to 1080 conversion, but you've now blown up a clip 150% in the 720p sequence that itself is going to be blown up 150% by the TV itself. And 1080i just look sharper. How can't it? I understand the interlacing can cause some issues on fast movement, though I never notice, but on slow moving or fairly static stuff, which makes up the majority of TV, you've just got that much more pixel density. Quite a bit more really.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 8:18:58 pm

To answer the question about Avid - they havent changed the MCAM feature yet to get with the times.

Once setup, it works great and solid, and you can commit your edits with no issues and it wont cut audio with every scene change - but setting it up is still a pain if theres cameras that start/stop thru a shoot. If not, its pretty easy to setup.

That said with the new proxy workflow in 8.3 i was happily cutting 6 angles of 4k at 1/16 resolution with no frames dropping and not a huge loss of picture quality on a pretty humble machine. Was surprised to get this performance.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 9, 2015 at 8:24:14 pm

A few years ago I did tests comparing 1080i60 and 720p60 for a company I worked at and 720p60 came out on top for their particular workflow.

Short version, the 720p60 footage was on par in terms of image quality while in motion (sometimes even looking better than 1080i), it compressed much better, and it didn't suffer from interlacing artifacts that can be a pain when you resize the frame or play with the speed.

Long version, it was for a company in the video game industry that delivered its TV shows at 1080i60 on HDCAM. I captured cut scenes from video games (console->HDMI->Blackmagic->FCP 7) in ProRes HQ as well as shot some live footage with an Sony EX1 both in 760p60 and in 1080i60. I put the footage on a 1080i60 timeline for comparison. I also laid them off to HDCAM at 1080i60 (720p to 1080i conversion was done by a blackmagic card on the fly) and bought them back into a 1080i60 sequence. For viewing I had a group of us (other editors, EP, post sup, production guys, etc.) watch a 45" Sony HDTV (can't remember the exact model) and a 24" JVC b'cast monitor.

While in motion no one could tell the difference between the 720p and the 1080i unless there were interlacing artifacts. If you paused and did the whole A/B thing on a single frame you could see that the 1080i60 sourced footage was a bit sharper than the 720p60 sourced footage. The biggest difference was on fine detail things (like GFX or the HUDs in the video games) which looked great from the 720p60 source but got slaughtered by the 1080i60 interlacing. For example, small text that was legible in 720p was illegible in 1080i. Besides not having interlacing artifacts, the progressive footage also compressed much cleaner and the company created content for both the web and for TV so compressed image quality factored into the decision as well.

720p60 won the day, So everything was sourced and cut in 720p60 and then converted to 1080i60 on output by the blackmagic card in real time to layoff on to tape.


If 1080p60 would've been a viable option at the time then that would have been the hands down winner, but, speaking in generalities, the differences between 1080i60 and 720p60 aren't as big as people think (including myself before I did these tests). When you really look at it though, 1080i60 is one 1920x540 frame every 1/60th of a second compared to one 1280x720 frame every 1/60th of a second for 720p60. In terms of raw number of pixels there isn't that much difference (when is why 720p60 and 1080i data rates have nearly identical).


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 12:18:14 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Short version, the 720p60 footage was on par in terms of image quality while in motion (sometimes even looking better than 1080i), it compressed much better, and it didn't suffer from interlacing artifacts that can be a pain when you resize the frame or play with the speed."

Same here. In my example, it's not for news but for commercial production. The news comment probably relates to field stories rather than studio camera. In many cases (still) a lot of TV stations are shooting ENG stories with SD anamorphic DV because of the need to amortize legacy hardware.

My own opinion in watching various networks at home on a 34" LCD TV via cable, is that there's no discernible difference between the 720 and 1080 stations. The reason is partly cable compression and partly that consumer screens simply aren't that good to begin with. Then add to that the fact that a lot of people are shooting content (in spots and reality-style shows) with DSLRs that skip lines, so you really don't end up with great resolution at 1080 anyway.

This particular station was shooting commercial production with Varicam when they went HD years ago and has since moved to 5Ds and C300s. By shooting 1080 for 720 finish, they have additional angles, when shooting pieces like customer, interview-style testimonials.

Some of the multicam pieces I've cut for them include interviews (5D + C300) and on-location cooking segments (5D + C300 + P2). The latter mixes 1080 and 720. I found that for multicam cutting in Premiere Pro, it was better to initially edit a 1080 timeline and get the camera cut fairly close. Then move that to 720 and deal with the creative reframing.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 12:21:55 am

[Bret Williams] "Logically I know it shouldn't lose anymore than the 720 to 1080 conversion, but you've now blown up a clip 150% in the 720p sequence that itself is going to be blown up 150% by the TV itself."

What bothers me more about this in doing creative reframing is that it is wrong optically. When you punch in for a close-up from wider angle, it doesn't look the same as if you natively shot it that way. But that argument goes away when production efficiency is a key ingredient.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 12:36:00 pm

http://www.rippletraining.com/categories/apple-pro-apps-tutorials/final-cut...

$30 bucks.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 3:02:41 pm

http://www.rippletraining.com/categories/apple-pro-apps-tutorials/final-cut...

$30 bucks.


Thanks I have all their tutorials.

It makes sense that when you double click on any Multicam project it's the same as opening the Multicam source clip in the browser.

I have been back and looked again and the final lesson deals with this "How Multicam clips relate" but their recommended workflow for having completely different versions is to duplicate the master clip which would mean cutting from scratch.

They do not mention "Duplicate as Snapshot" even though that command was integrated into the version of FCPX they are using in my tutorial. But my tests seem to work and preserve the previous versions even when changes are made in the Angle Editor once I have duplicated a project as a snapshot but I wonder if there might be some flaws to this workflow.

I wonder if PP is simpler than this or handles it differently?


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 4:05:18 pm

Who are you replying to? Oliver?


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 5:18:43 pm

Sorry. I was replying to Scott's suggestions of the Multicam ripple tutorial and adding a bit extra about the Snapshot workflow from earlier. Sorry if I've derailed things.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 5:26:29 pm

I asked Scott who he was replying to because he replied to Oliver's comment with something about tutorials. Didn't make any sense.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 10, 2015 at 10:20:04 pm

Sorry Brett -

This was a link to Ripple's Multicam Tutorial, which seems to be a good investment to anyone truly interested. I have used Ripple alot and they are really good lessons. Might be of some help to the OP. Sorry James, I should have quoted from the original post.

scott

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 12:52:54 am

Ah. I think some don't look at the forum in thread view and realize replies are to a specific post and not just a linear discussion so it's not generally needed to quote.

Ripple is awesome. But this is a pretty specific thing that usually wouldn't even come up. But it can bite you if you're not careful. James trick with the snapshots is the best idea I've heard to break the relationship.


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 1:08:12 am

[Bret Williams] "
Ah. I think some don't look at the forum in thread view and realize replies are to a specific post and not just a linear discussion so it's not generally needed to quote."


Yep. Thanks to the recent addition by Tim, I now always view in the new option of "View Posts by Topic (Date Updated)". The lack of quoting in these threads when viewing this way has always been a bit of a hassle. To figure out which post a new post is referring to I sometimes have to scroll up to guess which post was the one they were responding to. Most of the time I figure it out, but not always.
--

Hey Tim if you're following this thread...

Any chance of adding the option after "Reply" of "Reply with Quote"? I think most new posters and some veterans aren't aware of the "Q" trick you can use after you hit the Reply link. This would help solve this particular problem when viewing by topic.

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 1:54:57 am

[Dave Gage] "Hey Tim if you're following this thread..."

Dude, I follow every thread. LOL I'm just not always able to reply.... however....



[Dave Gage] "Any chance of adding the option after "Reply" of "Reply with Quote"? I think most new posters and some veterans aren't aware of the "Q" trick you can use after you hit the Reply link. This would help solve this particular problem when viewing by topic."

Hmmmm, I think I see what you're saying.Let me poke at this for a while. Can you take one more try at describing it for me?

I really like this new view too, btw. Thanks for your patience as we continue to refine.

In the meantime, folks who don't know it should definitely check out the "Q" button. Hit Reply to bring up the text entry box, then select the text in the post that you'd like to reply to, and press the "q" in your keyboard (no quotes, just the letter). The selected text will show up in italics, with the name of the poster in bold.

In fact, this feature was developed both for efficiency (no need to quote the whole post if you're only talking about one sentence), and in combination with the Threaded view, to provide a visual representation of branching conversations within a thread. Hence new posts going under the ones they reply to, rather than just parked at the bottom.

When a long thread went a dozen posts or so, that worked great. Now, threads routinely cross multiple dozens, sometimes over a hundred, and it's not always realistic to expect to find a new post asking alllll those others if it's in reply to one of the branches in the middle.

Anyway, if you can help me understand your suggestion a little better, we might be able to figure something out. ...


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 2:37:41 am

[Tim Wilson] "Hmmmm, I think I see what you're saying.Let me poke at this for a while. Can you take one more try at describing it for me? "

"Reply with quote" would automatically quote the entire post and put it in the reply text box (for lack of a better term). Right now it's:
1. Hit "reply".
2. Highlight text in post you are replying to.
3. Hit Q or "quote" button.

A "reply with quote" button would merge these steps into a single button press.


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 3:39:45 am

[Andrew Kimery] "
"Reply with quote" would automatically quote the entire post and put it in the reply text box (for lack of a better term). Right now it's:
1. Hit "reply".
2. Highlight text in post you are replying to.
3. Hit Q or "quote" button.

A "reply with quote" button would merge these steps into a single button press."


Tim, yes, what he said. I have an ancient forum (from 2001) on one of my websites that does exactly as Andrew described. The link for the "Reply with quote" is next to the "Reply" link and it greatly simplifies the "quote" aspect. As he mentioned, it does quote the complete prior post. If you don't want that, you need to use "Q" or edit the content of the quoted reply.

Check out this post and you can see how the reply and other options are laid out on the bottom right of each post-
http://www.harmonicalessons.com/members/dcforum/DCForumID1/651.html

Dave


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 5:21:59 am

I guess I'm confused. Where is this reply button? It's already simpler than described. Highlight, press q, continue typing. Press post when done.

And fwiw, the Q is fairly useless if you're not viewing in a computer. There's no way to just press q on an iPhone.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 2:42:22 pm

[Bret Williams] "And fwiw, the Q is fairly useless if you're not viewing in a computer. There's no way to just press q on an iPhone."

Hit reply.

Select text.

Press and hold "Quote" and click "open" from the pop up.

This should work on any iOS device.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 3:12:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "ress and hold "Quote" and click "open" from the pop up.

This should work on any iOS device."


Aha! Looks like it's easier than that. Just hightlight text and press quote. No need to press reply or hold down the quote button and choose open. Apparently the quote button ( which I'd never really noticed, like the reply button) replaces the Q.

People do realize that the reply field is at the bottom of the thread?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 4:13:43 pm

[Bret Williams] "Aha! Looks like it's easier than that. Just hightlight text and press quote. No need to press reply or hold down the quote button and choose open"

Nice!!!! Thanks for that


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 4:22:50 pm

Actually, you're right. This must have been fixed recently as before hitting quote didn't work, you had to hold it.

Proof from three years ago!: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/37825#37934


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 5:15:35 pm

[Bret Williams] "People do realize that the reply field is at the bottom of the thread?"

No where is the quote button?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 6:22:53 pm

In between the checkmark/lightbulb and the reply button.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 5:39:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In between the checkmark/lightbulb and the reply button."

the q button does not always work for me and the Bret system also only works intermittently

I have now seen the quote button for the first time so will use that.

Thanks


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 6:31:23 pm

[Bret Williams] "People do realize that the reply field is at the bottom of the thread?"

Not always. It depends on how you are reading the thread. If you click on a specific post to read it then the reply field is at the bottom of the page. If you hit the "read entire thread" button then all of the posts become visible in their entirety and there is no reply field at the bottom of the page. The reply field only appears after you've selected a specific post.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 1:32:52 pm

[Andrew Kimery] ""Reply with quote" would automatically quote the entire post and put it in the reply text box (for lack of a better term). Right now it's:
1. Hit "reply".
2. Highlight text in post you are replying to.
3. Hit Q or "quote" button.

A "reply with quote" button would merge these steps into a single button press.
"


That would be useful as I can't make the quote feature work on my iPad!


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 1:49:11 pm

[Steve Connor] "A "reply with quote" button would merge these steps into a single button press."

Bret's system of selecting text and hitting q seems to work. Saves one step.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 1:32:14 pm

[Oliver Peters] "1) the fact that audio gets cut with every edit (you have to detach/connect if you want one clean track of audio)"

Not sure I understand. If your audio is not to be edited with the picture, then why is it in the multicam to begin with and not simply connected in the project? If I change anything to the edit, the audio—that I'm assuming is and needs to be synced to the picture, which is why it's in the multicam?—is edited accordingly. How could that be considered bothersome? Multicam clips adhere 100% to every other type of clip in the project in terms of edibility (i.e. L and J cuts etc.). So I would think that if that irked you with multi cams, it should irk you the exact same with any other clip, no?


[Oliver Peters] "2) you cannot collapse the mcam clips once you are done."

I'm curious when you need this? It'd be fine if and when they add that, but I don't remember actually ever missing it in X. In 7 it had to be possible since multi cams bogged down 7's performance massively until you collapsed them. But in X there's no comparable performance hit that I've seen (assuming you have closed the camera window that is). And seeing that Resolve, X2Pro and others have no problem dealing with multi cams on export/import, why do you feel you need this? Just for "housekeeping" reasons? :)

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 2:47:52 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "If your audio is not to be edited with the picture, then why is it in the multicam to begin with and not simply connected in the project? If I change anything to the edit, the audio—that I'm assuming is and needs to be synced to the picture, which is why it's in the multicam?—is edited accordingly. How could that be considered bothersome?"

In many cases, such as controlled studio shoots, it's common to have mixed audio fed to at least one of the cameras. So Cam A Ch 1 and Ch2 has a master stereo mix. Cam B and C might have iso mics for back-up. When you are cutting mcam, you want to use only the audio from Cam A throughout the timeline. You aren't changing audio with every camera cut.

It's a nuisance to have join edits at every camera cut. Let's say you want to apply a single audio filter to the mixed track. With X, you'd have to apply that filter to every audio clip, since there are no track-based audio effects. Thus you end up detaching the audio and extending that track for the length of the timeline. This, as we know, risks throwing the audio out of sync, depending on edit functions (like adding/deleting a dissolve at the head) or operator error.

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'm curious when you need this?.... And seeing that Resolve, X2Pro and others have no problem dealing with multi cams on export/import, why do you feel you need this?"

It's not universally true that mcam clips are correctly translated. Collapsing clips would be a good thing. Yes, housekeeping is part of it. But it's also because right now mcam in X seems like an unfinished feature. You have collapse with auditions and break apart with compounds. Similar functions should be there for mcam containers.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 2:55:19 pm

"[Robin S. Kurz] "If your audio is not to be edited with the picture, then why is it in the multicam to begin with and not simply connected in the project? If I change anything to the edit, the audio—that I'm assuming is and needs to be synced to the picture, which is why it's in the multicam?—is edited accordingly. How could that be considered bothersome?""

[Oliver Peters] "1) the fact that audio gets cut with every edit (you have to detach/connect if you want one clean track of audio)"

My experience of Multicam editing of music is that one tends to use just one audio source most of the time. (The mixed good audio just cut pictures with audio from other camera sources maybe used for supplementary ambience from time to time).

What I do NOT want is for invisible audio edits to be applied to my master audio every time I cut picture (camera angles). It can cause lots of pops and problems especially when using audio filters.

Especially as I have carefully selected the enable video only option.

It's a bit odd I think.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 5:58:50 pm

[Oliver Peters] "When you are cutting mcam, you want to use only the audio from Cam A throughout the timeline."

Which it is, if I only edit the video. Or even multiple audio tracks.


[Oliver Peters] "With X, you'd have to apply that filter to every audio clip, since there are no track-based audio effects. "

Why wouldn't you do that in the angle editor? Apply to one clip, affect every instance.


[Oliver Peters] "It's not universally true that mcam clips are correctly translated."

I don't know about "universally", but all the—to me—relevant apps are fine. Where are you seeing issues?


[Oliver Peters] "But it's also because right now mcam in X seems like an unfinished feature. You have collapse with auditions and break apart with compounds. Similar functions should be there for mcam containers."

Agreed. Seems odd that you can do it with Auditions (which were there from the start) but not with mcams where the basic concept is pretty much the same, yes. But again, other than for housekeeping reasons I've personally never felt I needed it. But something tells me it'll show up soon. Seems a given. We'll see.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 7:04:31 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "
Which it is, if I only edit the video. Or even multiple audio tracks.

No. Sorry you are mistaken. Take a look. It puts invisible edits in the audio track. That is what we are talking about here.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 17, 2015 at 6:39:03 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jan 17, 2015 at 6:46:28 pm

Please explain why when I have been editing video only I have cuts in my master audio on every video cut and how that benefits me?

Also I have no wish to apply blanket filters across a one hour Multicam timeline.

1_audiocuts.tiff.jpg


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 17, 2015 at 6:49:06 pm

[James Ewart] "Please explain why when I have been editing video only I have cuts in my master audio on every video cut and how that benefits me?"

I'll take a guess.

Since, unlike virtually all other NLEs - X does not treat audio and video as exclusively separate elements from square one - and in fact, is totally comfortable working with a mixed audio/video clip as a single element - at some stage, the designers had to make a choice.

When the editor applies the metadata to say "cut the muxed clip HERE" - there are two ways you can go.

You can apply that ONLY to the video and give the user no indication that the audio portion of the mixed clip has a frame where the video was cut - OR you can provide a marker on both tracks that the user can either interact with or ignore.

If you ignore it, it's just a through edit so playback remains unchanged. So the users gets something (the edit marker) and gives up nothing except extra dotted lines on their storyline.

If you eliminate it, then nobody can go back and ever see where there might be a matching cut in the audio to go with a cut in the video.

It's a judgement call as to which approach is more useful to a particular editor's preferred workflow.

But you can easily make the case for each approach, particularly since X comes with the ability to break apart clip items and let you separate video and audio out.

Basically, this could be seen as editors being annoyed by having "too much visual information?"

I get that it's been problematic since at least at one point, there was an audio anomaly associated with the cut point - but that's a different problem, IMO.

Just one way to look at it, not necessarily the right or wrong one.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 17, 2015 at 6:53:19 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jan 18, 2015 at 3:55:39 am

Changed this post have had more time to consider.

I suppose it would be helpful if somewhere in the manual or help pages it actually told you it cut the audio as well (with 'video only' selcted)rather than having to find out for oneself. So perhaps the recommended workflow should be to detach audio first or are you saying what look like audio edits are just markers showing where the edits are? Because I am sure I hear clipping and popping but maybe mistaken. I thought this was what Oliver was talking about.

Am I muddled?

Or maybe it's assuming that we should always "layback" a new clean master audio?

Thanks


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 7:00:16 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jan 11, 2015 at 1:50:51 pm

[Herb Sevush] "In this thread I'm asking for someone to show me how X can help me improve my efficiency in cutting multicam. In return I will endeavor to explain how other systems might improve your multicam work. Let's keep it simple and open to all possibilities."

Sorry if this is not a technical reply. It's not going to prove anything quantifiably.

For my own benefit I have been watching some PP tutorials on the Adobe website. My impression of PP is that it is such a complicated looking interface - not quite as muddled as MC and probably a bit more cluttered than FCP7.

What I found hard to adjust to with FCPX was the simplicity of the streamlined interface. I have now realised it is what I like most about it now. Everything is there if you need it but less "in yer face"

I find it easier to concentrate on the edit, the story, the rhythm. Does that make me more efficient? Who can say. It's just a nicer place to go to work. It's about feel. Apologies if this sounds superficial and I know it's not specific to Multicam but I wonder if that's what it all boils down to - maybe it is not something you can enumerate.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 2:26:52 pm

[James Ewart] "My impression of PP is that it is such a complicated looking interface - not quite as muddled as MC and probably a bit more cluttered than FCP7. "

What you have to remember is that PProCC's interface (and MC) is highly customizable, which FCP X isn't. Smoke, too, is cluttered, but with less user customization. You don't have to have all of the panes open in PProCC if you don't want and you can save various workspace layouts. It's great with dual screens, because you can do things like have the timeline window completely take up one screen, if you like.

In addition, Adobe enabled developers to create plug-ins that have custom panels that can plug right into the interface. Some things in standard operation benefit additional panels. For example, in audio you can apply effects and levels on both a clip and track level. There are a lot of right-click contextual function, too, like Replace and Audio Channel re-assignments.

Since panes are dockable in various ways, you can have two sequences as tabs or as separate timeline windows. The latter condition allows you to drag clips from one window to the other, while seeing both. So, the bottom line is that yes, it looks more confusing than X, but this in many ways empowers functions that benefit the user in ways that FCP X's interface can't.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 6:41:19 pm

[Oliver Peters] "What you have to remember is that PProCC's interface (and MC) is highly customizable, which FCP X isn't. Smoke, too, is cluttered, but with less user customization. You don't have to have all of the panes open in PProCC if you don't want and you can save various workspace layouts. It's great with dual screens, because you can do things like have the timeline window completely take up one screen, if you like.
"


The first time I cracked open PPro to really dig into it in 2013 I too was turned off by the interface (this is coming from a FCP 7 and Avid MC background) but once I learned what everything did and configured it how I want it (added some things here, took away some things there, etc.,) I didn't feel that way anymore. If I was on a smallish single screen it would probably feel cramped but it's rare that I'm not rocking two big monitors (one gets Preview, Record and timeline, the other gets everything else).

My PPro setup might look busy to some, but to me it has all the things I want to see at the 'top level' so it's easily accessible at a glance. Definitely a thing of personal preference though.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 7:40:38 pm

It's very easy to make the PPro interface less "busy"



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 7:34:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "What you have to remember is that PProCC's interface (and MC) is highly customizable, which FCP X isn't. Smoke, too, is cluttered, but with less user customization. "

Yes I accept that but they are all messy in my view by comparison. FCPX is a "better" designed interface for my money. Radically different. Less tech looking. whether for Multicam or single cam. And I hated it for a year.

Less distraction. Of course this all depends on what you are doing and as you said on another thread maybe a better offline tool than online tool

Great for me. Maybe not for you.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 7:43:00 pm

[James Ewart] "Yes I accept that but they are all messy in my view by comparison. FCPX is a "better" designed interface for my money. Radically different. Less tech looking. whether for Multicam or single cam. And I hated it for a year.
"


I think we'll be getting a slight redesign soon, making things a bit more "flattened" like the new iMovie.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 9:39:59 pm

[James Ewart] "Yes I accept that but they are all messy in my view by comparison. FCPX is a "better" designed interface for my money. Radically different. Less tech looking. whether for Multicam or single cam. And I hated it for a year."

Remember that FCP X was designed before Apple's current design trend towards flat interfaces. I wouldn't be surprised if X got a facelift in the next version or two. Ironically, the new flatter look of Adobe's CC apps is now more in keeping with Apple's OS design than are Apple's own applications.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 11, 2015 at 10:52:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Ironically, the new flatter look of Adobe's CC apps is now more in keeping with Apple's OS design than are Apple's own applications"

DS had it first. I am still pissed at Avid for killing that product! ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 1:16:53 am

[Scott Witthaus] "DS had it first. I am still pissed at Avid for killing that product! ;-)"

Huh? I don't recall the DS interface being anywhere near as flat as iOS8 or 10.10. Certain no vibrant blue folder icons. ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 10:51:41 am

[Oliver Peters] "I don't recall the DS interface being anywhere near as flat as iOS8 or 10.10."

You should have been around the product in V1 and beta stages. Extremely subtle grey "bumps" on a similar grey background for icons. Print so small, even in those younger days I couldn't read it. We expressed concern for our vision and sanity to Softimage and they did change it for the better. When Avid bought the company, they made it more blocky and MC-like. But DS had clip effects, track effects, container composite clips, node-based effects...lots of great stuff and a great product. So Avid killed it. Lovely.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 1:10:57 pm

"You should have been around the product in V1 and beta stages. "

Actually I did see demos at that time. I also did several jobs on it around version 7 IIRC.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 3:40:03 pm

[James Ewart] "FCPX is a "better" designed interface for my money. Radically different."

I agree with you James. I like the term "elegant" over simple. Others mileage may vary.

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


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 3:06:00 am

"I agree with you James. I like the term "elegant" over simple. Others mileage may vary."

I like the term "simplistic" over both so you're right Mileage Does Vary. I'm not being confrontational here. I really disliked the interface. It felt designed for simplicity at the expense of functionality. I'm sure that's only intended not to scare off new editors but it pushed all my "inelegance" buttons.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 12:00:44 pm

[David Cherniack] "
I like the term "simplistic" over both so you're right Mileage Does Vary. I'm not being confrontational here. I really disliked the interface. It felt designed for simplicity at the expense of functionality. I'm sure that's only intended not to scare off new editors but it pushed all my "inelegance" buttons."


At first, I agreed with you too. But once I dug into the software and realized that all the power I was used to and more was in there, simplicity became elegance. And being a teacher of new editors, you are right there as well. They learn so damn quickly it's amazing. Apple did something very right with this software.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 1:32:30 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "But once I dug into the software and realized that all the power I was used to and more was in there, simplicity became elegance. And being a teacher of new editors, you are right there as well. They learn so damn quickly it's amazing. Apple did something very right with this software."

Couldn't agree more. A truly brilliant interface imho is one where you DON'T see absolutely everything all the time. For what? Just to look "professional"? You see and have access to any and everything you need the most, and everything else is tucked away and is easily accessed when you need it. To say (superficial) simplicity is somehow the hallmark of inadequacy or to consider that simplicity—without in fact sacrificing any functionality whatsoever, but in fact gaining more, but without it being in your face all the time— to be some sort of disadvantage, strikes me as rather short-sighted. I'd say the classic book-and-cover scenario. That simplicity, for me, is in fact the first and foremost standout feature of X.

No, I don't in fact need a button or tab or panel or whatever for every last little function or task, thank you. :)

And the shortcut that is analog to 7's Extend Edit is ⇧X btw.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 2:07:17 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "A truly brilliant interface imho is one where you DON'T see absolutely everything all the time."

An even more brilliant interface lets the user customize workspaces that fit their needs with the tools they pick to use within the application.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 2:21:33 pm

[Oliver Peters] "An even more brilliant interface lets the user customize workspaces that fit their needs with the tools they pick to use within the application."

Or at the very least save different versions of the workspace they 'allow" you.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 2:23:48 pm

[Oliver Peters] "An even more brilliant interface lets the user customize workspaces that fit their needs with the tools they pick to use within the application."

+1

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 2:31:38 pm

FWIW - a reminder of the current options in X and what we used to be able to do in 7.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/fcp-x-screen-layouts/

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/better-editing-with-custom-sc...

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 3:53:02 pm

[Scott Witthaus] " Apple did something very right with this software."

I'll stay in the subjective mode and say, I think that depends on how one values what they did. For me, it's not so much. My mileage doth definitely vary.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 8:56:39 pm

So, to sum up the original question about Multicam Editing posed by this thread -

FCPX has angle metadata, Ppro has the ability to "flatten" (replace multicam angles with original sources clips) and otherwise they are as similar as could be considering the differences in their basic NLE structure, and both are more advanced at this point than Avid and Legacy, although both those systems have their own unique strengths as well.

Thank you.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 9:34:45 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So, to sum up the original question about Multicam Editing posed by this thread"

...and you'll stick with Premiere, I am reckoning? ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 12, 2015 at 10:27:52 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "...and you'll stick with Premiere, I am reckoning? ;-)"

For the moment.

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 8:26:52 am

I would suggest watching a demo of how clips can be synced in the angle editor to any angle of your choosing after the fact, after an edit and the sync will be updated in the nest. Didn't get to read all the posts in this thread but I think the ease in which you can do this in FCPX is pretty awesome. That being said, once I get to the timeline, I'm sorely missing an Avid/PP style extend edit among all the other trim features.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 12:38:10 pm

[David Powell] "That being said, once I get to the timeline, I'm sorely missing an Avid/PP style extend edit among all the other trim features."

Out of interest what are those trim features over and above the ones I use which are option left and right bracket for extending cuts either way?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 2:20:33 pm

[David Powell] "I would suggest watching a demo of how clips can be synced in the angle editor to any angle of your choosing after the fact, after an edit and the sync will be updated in the nest. Didn't get to read all the posts in this thread but I think the ease in which you can do this in FCPX is pretty awesome."

Just watched a demo and that is a nice feature, especially being able to re-sync from within the angle editor using audio waveforms. In Ppro you have 2 options for this sort of start stop work - sync via waveforms internally and then manually consolidate angles, or use Plural Eyes to create a sync timeline and then make that timeline a multicam. Definitely a point in FCPX's favor, which I gave it when I talked about handling camera angle metadata.

in my case, most of my work is studio multicam where we sync to time code with virtually no start-stops of individual cameras, so this feature is of only minor interest. In my workflow I'm not looking for one long multicam with everything, I want each camera stop, where all 5 cameras start and stop together, to be a separate multiclip. What Ppro can do is take a browser full of multicam clips, lets say 100 clips of 5 camera multicam, ingest them all at one time and spit out 20 finished multicam clips in one belch. How would FCPX handle that scenario?

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 6:08:41 pm

[Herb Sevush] "in my case, most of my work is studio multicam where we sync to time code with virtually no start-stops of individual cameras, so this feature is of only minor interest. In my workflow I'm not looking for one long multicam with everything, I want each camera stop, where all 5 cameras start and stop together, to be a separate multiclip."

I honestly wouldn't give any advantage to FCPX for studio multi cam. In that regard it wouldn't really any advantage over PP or Avid. FCPX's multi cam poses more advantage for run and gun multi cam like docs and DSLR Weddings. However only in the syncing flexibility of the angel editor. Again the inability to to add audio effects inside the nest without making cut noises and inability to stabilize clips on the timeline actually gives it disadvantages even for these type of projects where it's needed most.

Also if you attempt to nest a multi cam clip to create a source side out of a timeline (like a faux pancake edit) you lose all your marker information and when you cut it back into the timeline, all the angles are messed up. This means to create a non-linear highlight of a longer requires going back and forth from the beginning to the end of your edit. And because I/O points has changed to "range" you can't use an in point as a place holder to quickly "go to in " for speedy moving around in the timeline.

A few reasons why it's been said that FCPX is fast on the front end but not so much faster during the edit in all cases. Though you really DO miss magnetic moving when you don't have it.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 6:47:49 pm

[David Powell] "the inability to to add audio effects inside the nest without making cut noises and inability to stabilize clips on the timeline actually gives it disadvantages"

Do you meant you can't stabilize individual clips in the final edited timeline, as opposed to stabilizing inside the nested multiclip? That would be problematic, and a place where the ability to "flatten" a clip so you are no longer bound by the nesting procedure would come in handy. In Ppro, for example, in order to send an audio clip to Audition for a little tweaking you first have to flatten it -- you can't send the audio from a multiclip. This is where "flattening" really comes into play for me.

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 7:22:57 pm

That is correct. There is no flattening function. And double clicking to move to the nest doesn't land you on the clip's timecode. You have to match frame copy the TC, enter the angle editor (nest) type in the tc, select range, copy the clip, go back to the timeline paste clip and stabilize. You cannot use optical flow on a multi clip either, for speed changes.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 7:44:31 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Just watched a demo and that is a nice feature, especially being able to re-sync from within the angle editor using audio waveforms."

Do you have a link to the demo you are talking about?


[Herb Sevush] " In my workflow I'm not looking for one long multicam with everything, I want each camera stop, where all 5 cameras start and stop together, to be a separate multiclip. What Ppro can do is take a browser full of multicam clips, lets say 100 clips of 5 camera multicam, ingest them all at one time and spit out 20 finished multicam clips in one belch."

The first time I let PPro sync everything up I was annoyed that it made a bunch of timelines because I was expecting one big timeline that I would the sub divide as needed. What I quickly realized though is that getting multiple timelines actually made my life easier as different shoots each ended up in their own timeline for the most part. Bob's interview was in one timeline, Jane's was in another, and the tour of their factory was in yet another. All I had to do was clean up the angles (annoying, hoping Adobe fixes this) and rename the timeline.

There are times when I'll have a long interview or shoot get broken into multiple timelines (everyone in the field stopped then started again) but it's less work to combine those timelines every now and then than to have to sub divide one monolithic timeline each and every time I do multicam in PPro.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 8:45:02 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Do you have a link to the demo you are talking about?"







[Andrew Kimery] "The first time I let PPro sync everything up I was annoyed that it made a bunch of timelines because I was expecting one big timeline that I would the sub divide as needed."

In Ppro there is a check box in the "create multicam" window that specifies whether or not to make one long multiclip or break it into discrete units.

[Andrew Kimery] "There are times when I'll have a long interview or shoot get broken into multiple timelines (everyone in the field stopped then started again) but it's less work to combine those timelines every now and then"

Actually I want to know if all camera's stopped and then started. This save's me from starting to cut something that has no continuity. If you're syncing by timecode having discrete multiclips also allows the multiclip nest to have the same timecode as the angles within the clip, which can be problematic when dealing with long monolithic multiclips. I realize using timecode dates me, but I only use wave form syncing when I have to.

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: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 8:12:07 am

Thanks for the link, Herb. PPro can sync clips in the timeline after the fact like that too. I haven't done it for a while but I think you just select the clip that's out of sync, select the 2nd system audio it goes with, right click, and select Sync in Timeline. I think that's the gist of it at least.

[Herb Sevush] "In Ppro there is a check box in the "create multicam" window that specifies whether or not to make one long multiclip or break it into discrete units."

Nifty, I never noticed that. Is it new to CC2014?


[Herb Sevush] "I realize using timecode dates me, but I only use wave form syncing when I have to."

If TC is available I'd much prefer to use that because fewer things can go wrong. I also end up with many situations in doc/reality where not all cameras have audio or have the same audio. For example, two camera crews are following a group of people, the people split up for a bit (so do the camera crews) and just like that syncing by waveform goes out the window.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 1:42:35 pm

[Andrew Kimery] ". PPro can sync clips in the timeline after the fact like that too. I haven't done it for a while but I think you just select the clip that's out of sync, select the 2nd system audio it goes with, right click, and select Sync in Timeline."

Good to know. Thanks.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 3:22:14 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Thanks for the link, Herb. PPro can sync clips in the timeline after the fact like that too. I haven't done it for a while but I think you just select the clip that's out of sync, select the 2nd system audio it goes with, right click, and select Sync in Timeline. I think that's the gist of it at least."

In addition to syncing using audio waveforms after the event, there is another option "sync to monitoring angle" (as opposed to "sync angle to monitoring angle") which I'm not sure that has been mentioned which is very useful although not sure if PP does the same.

Essentially if it isn't syncing quite right or you don't have audio for a camera for some reason it pulls up a two up display. Park the playhead on the monitoring angle in the Angle Editor and that is the right window and on the left window you can skim along the angle that you need to sync and match frames visually when you find the matching frame, just click and BINGO. It pulls it into sync for you.

Pretty cool.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 6:41:38 pm

[James Ewart] "Essentially if it isn't syncing quite right or you don't have audio for a camera for some reason it pulls up a two up display. Park the playhead on the monitoring angle in the Angle Editor and that is the right window and on the left window you can skim along the angle that you need to sync and match frames visually when you find the matching frame, just click and BINGO. It pulls it into sync for you."

I do not know. Whenever I've had to do this in PPro (or FCP Legend or Avid) I've just loaded the other angle into the source monitor, found the visual sync point, then edited that angle back into the timeline. I wonder if this is a mechanism Apple devised since they intended for X to just have a single monitoring window?


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 7:01:10 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I do not know. Whenever I've had to do this in PPro (or FCP Legend or Avid) I've just loaded the other angle into the source monitor, found the visual sync point, then edited that angle back into the timeline."

In truth I can no longer remember how this works in FCP legend. i dare say I'd pick it back up but i do vividly recall being thrilled at how much better it was at all the preparatory and sync work than i had been used to in FCP7. Actually that was the turning post for me especially the ability to cut single camera multi take shoots in Multicam mode.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 7:05:54 pm

[James Ewart] " i dare say I'd pick it back up but i do vividly recall being thrilled at how much better it was at all the preparatory and sync work than i had been used to in FCP7. "

I can totally relate to that. From the prep side and adjustment side X and PPro are so much easier and faster than FCP 7 or Avid it's not even funny. The first time I did a multicam project in PPro and the prep literally took minutes instead of hours I was so happy I wanted to hug my computer!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 5:32:45 pm

[David Powell] "That being said, once I get to the timeline, I'm sorely missing an Avid/PP style extend edit among all the other trim features.

"



Not sure if this is what you need, but an extend edit is shift-x. You can also use the option left/right bracket as well as option backslash which will move the cut point closest to playhead/skimmer. You may have to select which cut point with the brackets, or select both with the backslash.


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 6:24:40 pm

In reply to Jeremy and James, FCP's (7 and X) extend edit is not like PP and Avid. in FCP you must select an edit place your playhead and Shift X. This is totally inefficient and inorganic. in PP the parlance is "roll next/previous edit to playhead. This means i can hit play and just set a hotkey ("y" and "n" for me) so that as soon as the story hits a beat I hit "Y" and the previous edit rolls to that point live with no setup. You just hit play to the point where you want the edit to roll and one keystroke rolls it to the playhead. PP's is actually the most fluid of the three as Avid requires an I/O stroke to make it work but its not much slower.

James in Avid when you're going down the TL you hit U and the nearest edit is automatically selected and you're in trim mode which gives you a 2 up display now you can use jkl and the edit will move live as you play. FCP 7 and PP have a clunkier version of it. In Avid if you hit the space bar it will continuously loop the edit point and you can trim left right or ripple live and it'll update every loop until you you've nailed it. Hit "A" or "S" and now you're on the next edit point ready to trim. And you can move down your whole rough cut and polish it effortlessly.

If you came from FCP7 and never used this it's hard to appreciate how special it is. Similarly to how those who haven't mastered the magnetic timeline can't appreciate how special it is. It just sounds foreign to them. Btw, I sorely miss multiple BG exporting out of FCPX when I'm in another NLE. When you're a lone ranger with one computer this is a huge deal. Not so much if you have a slew of them on a shared network perhaps.

Sorry if this went off topic Herb.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 6:42:47 pm

[David Powell] "Sorry if this went off topic Herb."

But it went beautifully off-topic. An unbiased comparison of very specific features. Perfect.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 6:45:57 pm

Great thread you started here Herb, care to start another one about the benefits of the magnetic timeline?


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 7:10:44 pm

I'd like to see that. Started by anyone.

Tim


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 7:14:33 pm

[TImothy Auld] "I'd like to see that. Started by anyone.

Tim"


Done!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 8:51:07 pm

[Steve Connor] "Great thread you started here Herb,"

Thank you.

[Steve Connor] "care to start another one about the benefits of the magnetic timeline?"

Well, obviously I can't. But I think the reason this thread was productive is because it chose a very specific and complex feature that all major NLE's have, and then tried to compare them in a non-partisan way. Comparing timeline's is way too large a subject, it would be better to compare how different timeline's trim function's work for instance. I will continue this notion on the thread you started.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 2:07:15 pm

[Steve Connor] "care to start another one about the benefits of the magnetic timeline?"

There's always this: https://library.creativecow.net/austin_charlie/FCPX-Timeline/1

Or this (basically the same): http://fcpxpert.net/2015/01/12/exciting-webinar-taming-the-timeline/

Or any one of these: http://www.youtube.com/user/pixelcorps

Whereby the benefits only set in once you've understood the basics and have used it in production. Anyone that hasn't used it or only used in sparingly will tell you they hate it and it's useless yadda yadda yadda. No one that *I* know that has taken the time to wrap their head around it would ever want it to go away again. But if you're fine with what you have...

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 2:28:14 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Anyone that hasn't used it or only used in sparingly will tell you they hate it and it's useless yadda yadda yadda."

While I haven't used it I don't think it's useless, many fine editors here seem to swear by it. For me it doesn't look like the best tool for my workflow but I don't hate it; then again I guess I just don't qualify as an "anyone."

[Robin S. Kurz] " No one that *I* know that has taken the time to wrap their head around it would ever want it to go away again."

So I guess you don't know Oliver Peters or David Lawrence, both contributors here, who use X for part of their work, but still have problems with the "magnetic timeline." Or maybe your reading of these threads is a little bit selective ...

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 14, 2015 at 3:33:08 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So I guess you don't know Oliver Peters or David Lawrence"

No, I don't. You're right.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The exponential greatness of multicam in FCPX
on Jan 13, 2015 at 7:39:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
Not sure if this is what you need, but an extend edit is shift-x. You can also use the option left/right bracket as well as option backslash which will move the cut point closest to playhead/skimmer. You may have to select which cut point with the brackets, or select both with the backslash."


If you are using the option left and right bracket FCPX knows which clip to extend. The shift X option requires highlighting the edit in question which is one step more and I never us it


Return to posts index

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