FORUMS: list search recent posts

The "little things" in X.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 7:03:29 pm

My friend Leo Hans who cuts commercials on X for major Ad Agencies in Argentina posted a video capture of a tiny, tiny thing he noticed about how X works.

It's the kind of subtle thing that those of us who use the software rarely even notice - but speaks volumes about the attention to detail that the program designers are known for.

How clip titles in your storyline float as needed to keep them on-screen for editor orientation.

Enjoy.







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

Steve Connor
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 7:08:35 pm

PPro does this as well


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 7:20:15 pm

I wonder which UI design team originally figured it out.
It's certainly convenient.

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


Bret Williams
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 8:03:28 pm

I noticed that the instant I scrolled the first time. Still bugs me at times as I equate the left edge of a clip with it's text. I guess it's an improvement overall, especially if you do t have 20 years experience of it performing in a particular way.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 8:15:34 pm

It's like they are being scooped up by a plow! Funny...and useful.

Avid will never do it.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 8:41:03 pm

Shane,

AVID just expects that the editor will KNOW that the "clown horn" is on Audio track 23.

Because audio track 23 is the "clown horn" track and AVID editors are expected to know that because they are AVID editors and have extensive ongoing experience remembering where stuff is.

Simple.

; )

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


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 8:49:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "AVID just expects that the editor will KNOW that the "clown horn" is on Audio track 23. "

No, the difference is that it's easier to remember where things are when you have tracks, because people are used to reading and remembering things organized in grids that make it easier to correlate elements in time and space. David Lawrence and i have been telling you all this for over four years.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 9:03:44 pm

And your contention that ALL editors MUST be spatially oriented to a GRID to be effective has been TOTALLY WRONG for those same four years.

Different peoples brains are often - different.

Someday you'll come to appreciate that.

Maybe.

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 9:22:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "And your contention that ALL editors MUST be spatially oriented to a GRID to be effective has been TOTALLY WRONG for those same four years."

That's a perfect example of your misquoting in order to try to make a good point out of your own crap.

I never said "ALL" editors do anything, "ALL" was your fabrication - in formal debate that's recognized as method of avoiding or deflecting attention form your opponent's valid point in order to confuse the issue.

Nice try!!!

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 9, 2015 at 1:14:45 am

Here's your direct quote:

"because people are used to reading and remembering things organized in grids that make it easier to ..."

Now I'll fix it for you...

"because SOME people are used to reading and remembering things in grids that make it easier to..."

You're the one that failed to qualify your statement - implying it's universal. Not me.

Sorry if that's not what you meant. But it IS what you wrote.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 12, 2015 at 8:00:23 pm

Well, using tracks includes a certain discipline on where you place your audio. And I prefer that, especially because I have most of the audio for my documentaries and children's television show mixed in a sound studio.
When you order the audio on tracks, the sound editor gets the very ordered structure as well. Crucial for him because he uses particular filters, panning and levelling for the various types of audio (dialogue, narration, music, FX etc.). So all dialogue goes on one track, so does narration, music etc etc.

If an editor already does that, it saves a lot of times there.

In FCPX this is another story. I have seen audio timelines from FCPX (using X2Pro) showing with 96 tracks!!! Where normally an export from FCP7 or AVID would just be something like 12-16 tracks. But since FCPX is clips based, it sends out ALL audio belonging to the clips used. So the sound editor has to start cleaning up a lot AND put everything to the proper tracks before he can start doing anything.

The roles system in FCPX seems to be developed to kinda do it differently. It's kind of a nice approach, I use it a lot and it works well with proTools for instance. But what I find bothersome is that you have to assign the roles BEFORE you start using them. If any audio is already cut into the project and you reassign the roles in the audio source clip, it's doesn't change it in the project. It's one of those many little things in FCPX that haven't been properly thought through.

AVID however does do that, if you change anything in the source clip (or you decide to give the music track of FX track a different colour) it also changes it in the used clips in the timeline.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 13, 2015 at 3:27:45 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Sep 13, 2015 at 3:31:59 am

I"m sorry but I don't understand this at all.

You wrote in your first line... "Well, using tracks includes a certain discipline on where you place your audio."

Then a couple of paragraphs later you wrote... But what I find bothersome is that you have to assign the roles BEFORE you start using them.

Is it the first thing, where to be professional with audio you have to have a plan?
Or to be a professional audio system you expect your users to change their minds mid effort?

Seems to me these approaches are kinda 180 degrees apart.

Mike Matzdorff who did the 1st AE work on Focus addressed exactly this multiple times. Basically saying that at some point, you've got to get your S*** together and tell the software what goes where. And that "some point' needs to be BEFORE export. If you do it up front, it's VERY easy. If you're lazy and don't do it until the end, it's significantly harder - but still very do-able. If a guy has 96 improperly assigned tracks in X, I bet dollars to donuts he'd have 96 clips spread onto god knows how many tracks in another NLE. Not because of how the NLE works, but because he's clueless. And clueless people mess things up. You either know what you're doing or you don't. No NLE will ever totally solve that.

So I'm not sure how this is an inherent issue with the software instead of a situation where to use something professionally an editor simply has GOT to learn HOW to use it.

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


Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:01:13 am
Last Edited By Mike Warmels on Sep 13, 2015 at 9:34:21 am

Ah, well maybe I didn't explain the fact that I work in a television environment where a lot of directors do their own rough cuts. And FCPX has always been the one to claim it's so great because it's easy to learn and handle. And most love it, because of it's ease and speed for rough cuts.

I am a director myself, and I do my own (pretty detailed) rough cuts myself, but I also like the rest of the process to runs smoothly. Most directors start their Libraries and Projects that editors then have to finish. However, when it comes to discipline, the majority hasn't got a clue what their doing. So they cut away, add music etc.

So when an editor comes in, he automatically cleans up the timelines. Now, in FCP7, PPro and AVID you have a direct overview: what video layers are there, what audiotracks, what kind of audio. And moving them into the 'proper' tracks is some work, but not a lot. You can easily color code all the tracks or source clips and within less than an hour it all looks decent.

The problem with FCPX is that you can change the role of your audio, but when it's in the project/timeline, you have to change bot the audio roles in the timeline AND in the Library. Now, in the Library it's extremely easy and fast, but in the timeline you have to do it again. Plus often editors have to unselect the audiotracks NOT used and for that they have to go clip by clip by clip to check if anything is selected or unselected. There's no way to see that in one glance by looking at the timeline. The lack of immediate overview of what's there and how it's used or has to be used, is just lacking.

So imagine getting a 40 minute rough cut for for a 30 minute show (fairly standard).. a lot of work that could be prevented if the roles assigned to or tracks (un)selected) in the original clips would automatically be changed in the project.

It's just one of these typical programming things where I find FCPX quite immature. And there are a lot of them, and they show up unexpectedly when you have to do something FCPX obviously considers "complex".


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 13, 2015 at 4:51:48 pm

Just wondering if you have spent much time in the Roles subsection of the timeline index Mike?

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

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 13, 2015 at 5:05:19 pm
Last Edited By Mike Warmels on Sep 13, 2015 at 6:09:25 pm

You have me confused. I may not be working with FCPX as long and intensively as you have, but I am sure FCPX doesn't have timelines, only Projects. So I doubt I'll be able to find a subsection to something that doesn't exist. In fact, I doubt the word 'subsection' exists in the FCPX vocabulary. So I have no idea if I have looked into that. What do you mean by it?


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:09:53 pm

[Mike Warmels] "You have me confused. I may not be working with FCPX as long and intensively as you have, but I am sure FCPX doesn't have timelines, only Projects. So I doubt I'll be able to find a subsection to something that doesn't exist. In fact, I doubt the word 'subsection' exists in the FCPX vocabulary. So I have no idea if I have looked into that. What do you mean by it?"

X absolutely has timelines. The term is used throughout the program. It just doesn't have the exact same meaning that it used to have. The Project spaces you work in are Storylines in the new terminology - including the Primary Storyline where you make magnetic connections. But there's also "Open in Timeliine" thougthout X as one of it's most useful features once you understand it.

The Timeline Index is the formal name of the small clickable area on the lower left of any project that brings up a list of every clip in your program. One aspect that people often overlook is since clips often arrive with default roles, Minimizing clips you don't want to work with IN the Timeline Index area - then using the Roles assignment module to step though the rest and use the quick keyboard combinations to assign new Roles makes reworking material in an existing project much easier.

As noted, it's WAY easier to do this up front assigning roles in the Browser, but if you screw up and need to assign them later - there are facilities in X that help.

Again, X often LOOKS simple to editors not used to it. But there is a lot of depth going on inside it.

Hope that helps.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:29:03 am

Oh that one. yes that is a very handy tool to get some overview over the timeline. It doesn't help you assign the roles though. And it also doesn't change the fact that role assignments between clips in the browser and used section from that clip in the timeline are not connected for some reason. But you are right, you have to do all that up front and work disciplined. On a side note, if this is important here, what's the problem with working with tracks? I don't get it. I see many editors and tutorial as talking about cleaning up the timeline to get most of the similar tracks on approximately the same vertical position. That's almost like assigning tracks.

What I do find a missed opportunity in this subsection is that you cannot give the different roles their own color. That would by far improve the overview of the timeline itself. Now you can only see at "one glance" what is what by:

1. Opening the subsection
2. Select the roles tab
3. Click on the separate roles.

Again: a lot of work for something that could be very simply adjusted. Obviously it is all there: FCPX can recognise where the roles are. Why not allow us to give it a separate color. Again: one the quite immature things of FCPX. (especially since other and older NLE CAN do this).


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 7:35:44 am

Mike -

Improved roles functionality is an ongoing feature request. You're right: lots of opportunity here, if Apple can deliver.

[Mike Warmels] "role assignments between clips in the browser and used section from that clip in the timeline are not connected for some reason."

There have been several discussions in the forum about browser vs. timeline roles. Some have suggested that changing a role on a clip in the timeline should ripple back to the browser-master clip level.

I'm with the "Why would you want that?" crowd. If I've initially assigned a role (say, "Dialogue", subrole "Bob-lavaliere") and I want to change it in the timeline (perhaps I'm using a bit of room tone stolen from the Bob-lav clip as an ADR fill), I wouldn't want the role assigned for that particular instance to change the role as assigned on the master clip.

I think Herb talked about using a bit of "sizzle" sound as part of the dialogue in some instances, while using it as sfx in other instances. He was using the example to support his desire for tracks. But I think it's a good example of why rippling a role change back to the master clip is a terrible idea.

Perhaps the solution would be to make it an option, as someone else suggested.

[Mike Warmels] "what's the problem with working with tracks?"

I think roles, especially when more fully implemented, serves the same organizational function as tracks. If we get the roles grouping/colors/etc. that we're asking for, even the much vaunted "visual reference" function would be taken care of. And using roles sidesteps the "Track Tetris" annoyance. (I for one could go the rest of my life without ever having to patch another audio or video track!)


Return to posts index


Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 7:46:48 am

Yes, I agree, I think the roles concept is very nice. Especially is ProTools, Nuendo and other sound mixing software can immediately use them. It would save a lot of them. But, as you said, ONLY if it gets fully implemented. It seems more a cosmetic thing at the moment. The only reason why it doesn't feel very modern is that it kinda harks back to old film editing...

The "why would you want that" is maybe very specific to my work environment where television directors do a lot of rough cutting themselves (like I do) but very rarely have the discipline to assign roles beforehand. That just cause a lot of extra work for the editors.

And also, if we ever get color coding for these clips it would be nice to do it in colors you as an editor prefer. But with that we're coming to the UI customisation, which is basically not present in FCPX. One of the things FCPX could adopt from FCP7 or AVID is that it would be taking editors seriously if they can customise the window lay-out to suit their own preferences. It's one of the things I like about AVID: every editor has its own set-up, way of working. You arrive at a set somewhere, insert your settings and poof: it's like you're on your own set. With everything set to the way you like it.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:16:43 am

Regarding roles in sweetening: X to Pro crates an AAF that gathers timeline audio clips by roles and lays them out in a standard Pro Tools style. So "Dialogue-Bob-lav" clips are all sent over as one track, unless there's overlap, in which case it sends to one or more tracks in sequence (T1, T2, T3, etc.). Then the next role is handled on the next sequential tracks. Same for music, sfx, etc. As long as there's a role (and subroles, if any) assigned, the clips are grouped. (Disclaimer - I haven't used it yet so I may have some details wrong, but I'm pretty confident it works this way.) X to Pro can also send to Logic X more accurately than X's own send-to-Logic function, apparently. ;-(

So, yeah, roles as they exist now are far more than cosmetic.

I wonder, can the footage have roles set before going to your undisciplined directors?

Also, I THINK you can select multiple roles in the timeline index and add/change roles there. Bill? Confirm?

As far as grouping clips in the timeline to approximate "tracks," I think it was Charlie Austin who had a method:

Create some dummy titles named "SOT," Music," "SFX," and so on. Pull them underneath the primary storyline. Then place each connected audio clip below the appropriate barrier strip. Do it either as you edit or after finishing a section. Doesn't take long, and the visual organization is obvious. If the audio is attached to video, it's probably dialogue/SOT by default. If it's nat sound, it can still stay attached to the video. Just drag the A/V clip under the primary as you would an audio-only clip. Make sense?

As far as UI: we'll have to agree to disagree. As I described in a different thread ("Why I like Premiere Pro - looking for serious discussion"), I'm a serious editor who is just fine with the X UI. I prefer a single monitor, and prefer to have my pix monitor directly above my UI monitor, just like in the old linear edit bays. And I'm particularly fine with one UI video window that automatically switches between source & record as needed. But I get that most editors want more customization -- I just think it's mostly habit, rather than a real need. To each his own. I think Apple could easily accommodate this request.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:27:28 am

Yes, the roles work when you're going to ProTools. But ProTools isn't the only software used by sound studios. Hehehe

And yes, you can change roles in the timeline and I think even add. The point was always that if you change something for a particular set of clips as you go along, you have to change them AS WELL in the Browser. So you have to do it twice. And not forget it.

And yes, it would be best if the material would be role assigned before it goes to the directors. But to be honest, that basically requires assistent editors and there's nod budget here for that.

When it comes the UI, I can work with it as it is. It only bugs when I want to do stuff like color correct for instance: you just can't see all your scopes at the same time, as well as all the correction tools (exposure, color, saturation). This is one those particular things you want to change your UI to see all the tool you need and not click away opening and closing windows, switching.

Luckily I have a very nice Flanders broadcast monitor where I can display one of the scopes and use another on FCPX. But again, this is a bit of a silly work around. (AVID has it, FCP7 had it... so why not FCPX... it's not like it's some stupid luxury feature).


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:51:52 am

Hi Mike,

I and at least 3 others on the forum here, still think that the concept that when you change a Role in the timeline, it doesn't switch back to the Browser, is a GOOD thing.

The whole logic from X is:
changes from the browser, trickle down if you use the clip afterwards in a timeline. This is not only true about Roles, but also about volume changes etc.
Changes on the timeline, don't reflect back to the 'master' clip in the browser.

You say it's a big disadvantage, but I think it's an advantage. I WOULDN'T WANT the Role to change in the Master clip. That way, it's (in my humble opinion) logic that if you want a change that persists everywhere, you do it in the browser before you use the clip (the 'master' clip). If you want to change something, volume or a role or a channel configuration, that is particular about that timeline, you just do it in the timeline.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:39:32 am

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "The whole logic from X is:
changes from the browser, trickle down if you use the clip afterwards in a timeline."


FCPX needs to add an Update Project/Sequence or Refresh Project/Sequence, like Avid has.

How I envision it working:

You inherit a project where the roles weren't set up properly (or at all), or you messed up assigning them. So you go through your source clips and assign/reassign roles, right click on your Project/Sequence and "Update/Refresh". It ripples the new roles from the source clips through your timeline. Avid does this with motion adapters, color transformations, frameflex settings, etc..., but it's not automatic. You have to manually invoke the refresh, which is great because you may not want your new source settings to update in your sequence. Or you may want to duplicate your original and only refresh the duplicate, so you have two identical sequences with differing roles assigned, in a matter of seconds.

You may lose a little work if you were to do this and had set up some custom roles in the timeline already, but I think in many cases it would get you about 90-90% of the way done, very quickly. And then you wouldn't have to worry about directors/producers not being disciplined up front - you can just set the roles, update the project, and move on.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:05:21 pm

Yes that sounds Like a good Idea. And if you do a snapshot duplicate of a timeline it shouldn't update.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 13, 2015 at 9:15:15 am
Last Edited By Mike Warmels on Sep 13, 2015 at 9:34:52 am

Oh yes, about the 96 tracks. Now, I haven't done the audio exports using X2Pro myself yet. Editors have done that but this is how I viewed it from my end:

1. I cut together a (not very) rough cut of a 30 minute show. I had all the roles assigned prior to editing (I do know how to work with discipline).
2. The XD-Cam footage was converted to Apple Pro Res by the broadcaster, who is producing the show. And as they say, they can only do that including duplicate tracks. XD-Cam has four, they duplicate those, so you get 8 tracks per clip. Why this is the case, I have no idea.
3. My editor and me unselected the audio tracks we didn't need in the cut (we usually only need three)
4. After finishing the cut audio was exported using X2Pro (just like Mike Matzdorff did on Focus) for mix on ProTools.

Now, when I came in to check out the mix the first time I just wanted to see what the sound editor got from us. Familiar with what FCP7 and AVID produces, I just wanted to know what you get, since FCPX can't do these AAF exports itself (silly!!!) but you have to use third part software.

And lo and behold: for every XD-CAM clip there were 8 tracks!! You can can imagine if you do the little magic audio fading trick as it has to be done in FCPX (just to see if the audio cut can be made) you automatically get 16 tracks. One of the great advantages of not having audio cross fades (another great feature of FCPX). So when one adds an atmo from another track to cover up the cut for instance, it's 24 tracks. And so on...

So maybe they're doing something wrong in X2Pro, I dunno, I don't use that particular software myself yet. (but I can hardly imagine that since dozens of editors do this everyday in that location using X2Pro). But personally it makes sense, since FCPX is clip based and not timeline based, like the other NLE's. So if you export clips, you get what's IN the clips, which is 8 tracks per clip.

(I see the same thing in consolidating - FCPX doesn't consolidate the used footage in the timeline with handle length, but includes the ENTIRE CLIP used - really smooth if you're using a few quotes from an half hour interview).


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:42:22 am

One of the things I most love about working with X is to be able to add a sound effect to B roll or some kind of graphic that might be up on v4 (or equivalent) and to put the associated sound effect right up there with it. In fact I tend to put them sit those audio fx on top of the clip. (Or make it a compound).

Doesn't matter where it is because FCPX knows what is is through roles.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 10:51:03 am

Okay, here's I thing I'd like to know.

I am currently working on a 4-part children's documentary series,s hot on Borneo. We shot about 18 hours of footage with separate audio recorded by my sound engineer on location. It's all synched now in FCPX (and causing huge delays in basic editing and handling the synchronised audioclips).

But here's the thing: in these clips there are two stereo atom tracks and three tracks individually assigned to three lavalier miss of the three main characters. Is it possible to assign a role to each separate track? So link a mic track to a person? Because it is recorded and logged that way. Would be nice to do the same with the roles.

Because that's what we would do in AVID and PPro - assign each source track to one track in the timeline.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 10:55:21 am
Last Edited By Mathieu Ghekiere on Sep 14, 2015 at 10:55:42 am

There are 2 options:

Sync'N Link where you can have it all automated. If it's logged correctly, it's a program for 200 dollars, that can make all synchronised clips for you, just trough XML and with all the tracks named (and I THINK also in Roles, but don't quote me on that) like it was logged by the sound recorder.

Another option is a free program called Role-O-Matic (if I'm not mistaken) made by our own Charlie from the board here, where you can put Roles on seperate tracks.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 4:55:56 pm

BIG RED FLAG here for me.

How many tracks does your field audio recorder grab - and how many of them are blank?

IIRC you are editing on an older version of X?

When I recorded the X presentations at NAB last year, we were working with a BlackMagic recorder that did 8 embedded tracks by default - with as many as 6 of them blank - and my editing almost ground to a halt!

The solution (thanks to Noah Kadner!) was to "open in Timeline" and delete the unused tracks. I went from hours of delay to minutes. It appears X was attempting to analyze LONG audio tracks that didn't have anything on them. It didn't like that.

Also - You've REALLY got to convince your team to upgrade to more recent versions of the software.
A LOT of this stuff has been addressed in subsequent upgrades.
Performance in 10.2+ in a whole range of these areas is MILES ahead of where X used to be.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:18:25 pm
Last Edited By Mike Warmels on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:35:36 pm

Yeah, big red flag for me too, now.

The audio recorder has at least 8 tracks. But sometimes we use only three, sometimes, 6 or 7. It varies. Some even didn't play right because within one XD-Cam disc there were differences of used tracks. And it sure couldn't hack it.

And yes, it's causing huge delays. Every click on a clip or in the timeline there's a beach ball. But the point is, the tracks aren't that long. There's all relatively short clips. Everytime the camera stops, a new audiofile is made. But to me it seems that it considers the whole synchronised clip as one entity it has to analyse over and over again.

The reason why I believe that is I tried consolidating two short clips from two synchronised clips (one didn't show audio after synching, while it was there in 'Open in Timeline" the others did). When I made a consolidation in a separate library it included ALL clips from the synchronized clip: about 85 minutes of video and 85 minutes op separate audio.

There's some major programming mistakes here.

So deleting the unused tracks would be the solution? In my case that would be the 8 unused tracks from the XD-Cam video.

Oh and it's not my team, it's my biggest client. Can't bitch to them about too much, they'll get annoyed. They have to transfer their entire SAN system to Yosemite first. All a bit late if you ask me, El Capitan is about to hit the shelfs.
Anyway, walked into a good friend of mine who told me she'd been streamlining their entire editing department and I urged her to get this transition going if they want to save some money. It will happen soon I hope, doesn't help me with this project tough.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 7:03:34 pm

Mike,

This almost killed me at the NAB edits until Noah figured it out. Open in timeline and delete the blank tracks made X suddenly work like X again. Night and day. It was how X worked up until the 10.2 transition, I think. Haven't seen it since. Drives you CRAZY when it's happening - then once you solve the puzzle, it simply goes away. Some subset of Murphy's law, I suspect.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 14, 2015 at 7:08:17 pm

You know, I deleted the unused XD-CAM tracks right away (even though they weren't blank) when you wrote that. And kapow... its performance increased immediately.

It's still 10.1.4 but at least I can get into the rhythm of cutting again.

I gotta SAY: SUPER TIP! Thank you thank you thank thank you and the guy who told you this. It's a bizarre bug, but this tip is a life saver! I just hope everything is really synch because now there is no way of checking it with the guide track anymore.

They better fix this some day, because in the end, I would like to have the guide tracks available for checking. But for now, I am happy (even on X.. ;-) ).


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 9, 2015 at 5:45:26 am

[David Roth Weiss] "it's easier to remember where things are when you have tracks"

Umm, no, not necessarily. I just got done doing fixes on some numbskull's promo (cut on Avid) that had 22 (!!) audio tracks, 3 of which were stereo way down at the bottom. Stereo sfx and inexplicably dual mono VO and SOT tracks spread willy nilly over the 22 tracks. An absolute mess. Couldn't keep track of what was where and why.

Been cutting on Avid for a long time. Oh how I wished I were in FCPX and didn't have to play Track Tetris on a deadline. What a waste of time. This kind of timeline is where X really shines with the trackless and magnetic timeline. Clean, organized and easy to work with.

Gotta go with Bill on this one.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 10:13:26 pm

I know where my clown horn is. I can spot it pretty quickly. It's a short effect so the name fills the whole clip anyway. Now, clip 79/1...the LONG one...no, if I'm zoomed in I have no idea if that's the clip I'm looking at or not.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 10:28:03 pm

I find scrolling timelines to be aesthetically unpleasing so I never knew this was a problem that need a solution.

Is kinda cool to watch the names float as the waveforms pass by though..


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 8, 2015 at 11:49:59 pm

dSP and Fairlight DAWs have been doing this for 20 years. At the bottom of screen you can select a track and a large waveform is displayed. The 'head' is fixed so everything scrolls past the head and the clip name stays on the left.

This behavior only happens in the scroller display. Otherwise as clips move past the head the names stick to the LHS. So you have both attributes in the one display.

Perhaps it is more use in a magnetic track NLE but for many people familiarity is also important. Visual distraction is always a consideration.


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 9, 2015 at 4:47:15 am

Wow that's amazing!

Now if X could only smooth scroll its timeline...

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: The "little things" in X.
on Sep 10, 2015 at 2:20:29 pm







Return to posts index

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