FORUMS: list search recent posts

My major beef

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Mathis
My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 12:08:12 am
Last Edited By David Mathis on Feb 14, 2016 at 12:08:47 am

Why there are things I like about X there is one thing that aggravates the (censored word of choice) out of me.
Why does a cross dissolve affect both audio and video? Yes, there is a way to make a cross dissolve for audio only. Why can't there be one for video only? It irritates me big time to split the audio from the video to do so. Then you have to trim the two separately to get them back together. Why must this be? I am ready to jump ship to Resolve, right now. At least I am not having to rent FCP unlike the "other" software.


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 12:44:55 am

I agree, it's stupid and annoying ... and fuel for the "It's not 'Pro'" argument.

Doug D


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 2:11:00 am

Flip the concept.

Why, when video and audio is digitized together in a SINGLE FILE at the camera - is the DEFAULT to expect to be split up so it can be treated as separate elements?

It can be argued that for the the VAST majority of users, if they shot video and recorded sound simultaneously (and other than shooting MOS, that's pretty much what everyone does!) - what's the purpose of treating that single digital file as TWO THINGS by default?

Isn't it only because that's how NLEs traditionally have worked? With Video up there - and Audio down there?

What if instead of a history of double system, the EARLIEST cameras had generated AV muxed files?

Wouldn't everyone just EXPECT to break apart the files ONLY when you need to?

I'm not saying one or the other is better or worse, just asking which "default" makes more sense if you detach it from what we all learned in the beginning, when film didn't have sound, so things HAD to be separate.

Interesting question, huh?

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


Jeremy Garchow
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 4:23:55 am

Bill, it's a shitty design.

Let's just let this one go, and then go ask Apple to fix it. That's the only thing interesting about this particular "feature".

A camera that records "muxed" audio and video as you call it, does not adjust the audio as your adjust the iris, and would be swiftly thrown out the window if it did.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 4:31:33 am

Cant tell if Bill is being serious or not.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 6:01:31 am

[Neil Goodman] "Cant tell if Bill is being serious or not."

This one's for you, Neil.



Return to posts index


Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48:13 am

Is there not a way to make this in Motion and then make it your default transition? I would presume if it's possible to make an audio-only transition, it's also possible to make a video only transition?

I think it's a handy default, but more options would be handy.
One of my biggest irritations is that if you choose to expand audio, you have to expand again for every new clip you throw in the timeline. Instead of being in an 'expanded' view. I'm not talking about audio components, but just the 'normal' expanded view that let's you easily do J-L cuts. I've asked for this in feedback many times, but oh well.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 3:51:49 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "Is there not a way to make this in Motion and then make it your default transition? "

That's a good question.

I'm trying to think of how often I would actually use it.

For the most part if I have an interview and the subject says," I started playing baseball at 16"

I just have that b-roll on top of his primary and make a dissolve on that footage while his audio underneath keeps going, and since the b-roll audio is together (how I prefer it) I just reach up and adjust that b-roll sound.


Are you guys wanting to do your video only transitions in the primary all the time? I'm trying to picture it.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 4:33:51 pm

I tried to build a video only cross dissolve for FCP X in Motion. The problem is that audio does not exist in Motion unless I missed something.

I basically opened up a transition thingy and expanded both transition clips to fill the entire timeline. I added a keyframe at the beginning and end of each clip for the opacity. Published that out hoping that the audio would not be affected. My dream boat made like the Titanic and sank.

As to why you can make an audio only dissolve in Motion is the change in the video transition only applies to the video. All one has to do is select transition from the welcome screen and publish out the transition with no changes being made.

Bill does raise an interesting question but have to disagree with him there.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 6:47:57 pm

[David Mathis] "Bill does raise an interesting question but have to disagree with him there."

Excellent.

Disagreement is a precursor to betterment in many cases.

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

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 6:46:41 pm

To the extent that Herb and I were able to engage on it and presumably sharpen our thinking, rather than just go once again to the "that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be, MOVE ON" mindset - then yes.

I'm fine knowing that I phrased it in a way that seems to have annoyed so many.

I think it's Mitch Ives who's signature notes something along the lines that Friction - and it's accompanying squeaks - draw attention to things we often take for granted.

And so it goes.

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

Mitch Ives
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 8:39:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "I think it's Mitch Ives who's signature notes something along the lines that Friction - and it's accompanying squeaks - draw attention to things we often take for granted."

true enough...

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index


Bob Cole
Re: My major beef
on Apr 7, 2016 at 12:13:52 am

I like Bill's point. Actually, not his point, but his refusal to see things from only one point of view.

To take a totally non-video angle on it... I interviewed a law professor who specializes in the rights of the handicapped. She mentioned curb cuts -- those little ramp-like things that enable people in wheelchairs, or people who have trouble negotiating steps, to cross the street. Her perspective was that curb cuts were not an "accommodation" to the disabled - they were the correct design choice in the FIRST place. It's all in how you perceive it.

That said, I think that dissolving audio in lockstep with video is crazy.

But again - I like Bill's point of view.

Bob C


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 3:07:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm not saying one or the other is better or worse, just asking which "default" makes more sense if you detach it from what we all learned in the beginning, when film didn't have sound, so things HAD to be separate.
Interesting question, huh?"


This is an interesting question and here's my take on it:

First, on a pragmatic level, the default should be separate because the number of times an editor wants to dissolve both audio and video at the same time is much, much less than the times they wish to do it separately. Quite simply every editorial decision is specific to it's situation and tying 2 decisions together because of a given production acquisition technique is, more often than not, less productive.

Second, on a more abstract level, I believe that anything that fosters the illusion that any sound is tied to any visual limits the imagination. Everything about what we do is an illusion -- there are no "movies" -- just still images and elements of digitized sound. Every element we have to play with should be as freely manipulated as possible and tied to nothing but the editors purpose. It is often convenient to use and move and manipulate audio that was recorded at the same time as video, which is why the ability to tie the two together in a sync relationship is crucial - but it is limiting to think they are to be muxed together on your timeline because that was how you imported the file.

Which is why in my own workflow once I assemble an edit I always detach all my audio from my video using whatever tools a given NLE will have - I've never performed a J or L cut in my life. Instead I cut the audio where the audio wants to be cut, I cut the video where the video wants to be cut and I never have to worry that if I'm manipulating one piece of media, another "connected" piece of media somewhere else in the timeline is being affected.

YMMV

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 6:41:45 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Feb 14, 2016 at 6:59:05 pm

Thanks for taking this seriously, Herb. Your perspective helped me expand my thinking about the topic in a way the other responses here did not.

I suspect I question this more because I don't just edit, I shoot regularly. And deciding whether to capture double system or to capture muxed audio and video for me today is made on a constantly shifting case by case basis. I can tell you that properly recorded field audio of any speaking human where the signal to noise ratio is well managed and the sync sound file is usable "as is" is a HUGE productivity boost for me as an X editor. I can treat it as a single entity until and unless *I* elect to treat it separately. J and L cuts against my story linel elements are literally a breeze in the X "connected clip and secondary" paradigm.

I posed the question partially because I saw another vastly complex X timeline coming out of a huge national European Broadcast shop - and the first thing that struck me is that just like most of our timelines, all the video was UP and all the audio was DOWN - and they had thousands of audio clips in play for the hour-long episodic TV show.

There might have been PERFECTLY good reasons for that. But it’s also possible that it’s a remnant of traditional NLE thinking in that some extra visual clarity MIGHT have been obtained by simply moving countless sound SFX shots that were clearly referencing on screen action, adjacent to the clips they were associated with.

In X, that’s perfectly possible. Not so in other NLEs.

It’s also common for me now NOT to have to break apart or otherwise manipulate clips that are already properly recorded. If I do proper field recording, I can often get by with simply setting a global level for a long scene in the browser - and know that that will become the level for any use thereafter. It’s a way to take steps OUT of my checklist.

Just worth discussing. That’s all.

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


Herb Sevush
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 1:58:56 am

[Bill Davis] "Just worth discussing. That’s all."

I agree. I've always felt the most interesting part of this forum is the exposure to the multiplicity of workflows that are used by the editors who contribute here.

My biases, and I imagine this is true for most, are based on past history and the nature of the work I generally do. My earliest work was in 16mm film and most of the work I do today is multi-camera; the former almost totally double system, the latter discourages the notion of audio being connected to something since your almost always cutting your video against audio recorded on a different camera. Now this doesn't mean all multi-camera guys cut like I do, I know for a fact that most don't, but it has influenced the way I personally work and the way I teach assistant editors who have worked for me.

I'm not an absolutest about this, if I have a simple talking head with some B-roll I might leave the audio connected, but for anything more complex than that I want every element floating free. I have all sorts of philosophical arguments to justify my choices, but the truth is it's just the way I like to work.

And as to audio dissolves, it is my common technique, once I'm at the fine cut stage to add a 3 frame audio dissolve to every dialogue and EFX edit. I do this with a global command. When I do my final passes I will adjust many and delete some of these dissolves, but in the end I would guess that 90% of my audio edits have some sort of cross dissolve in the final timeline. I find this finesses all sorts of cross breathing and subtle changes in room tone. This technique is probably a result of my working so often on cooking shows, where the ambient sound changes moment to moment, and the whole idea of room tone seems rather quaint.

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: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 2:29:25 am

"once I'm at the fine cut stage to add a 3 frame audio dissolve to every dialogue and EFX edit."

I follow this same process in Avid, FCP "classic" and Premiere. Have for years. It's a great way to finesse your audio.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 6:23:29 am

[Oliver Peters] "I follow this same process in Avid, FCP "classic" and Premiere. Have for years. It's a great way to finesse your audio.
"


Me three on the adding of 2-3 frame dissolves on dialog edits. I've done it for as long as I can remember.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 4:41:40 am

See, THIS is why we hang out here and debate stuff.

Inside the discussion - sometimes comes illumination.

Thanks Herb, for taking the time to write about this.

It was very interesting to me.

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 4:35:58 pm







;-)


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: My major beef
on Apr 8, 2016 at 5:47:01 pm

not that interesting a question when you consider we're talking about EDITING -- taking something shot and putting it in a different order - isolating video and mixing it with different audio sources or the other way around. Virtually every other NLE allows keyboard or right click shortcuts to chose an audio or video dissolve -- several years out FCP X still makes this a Texas Two Step

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 4:06:21 pm

I thought that when you 1st expand audio, then apply trans, collapse audio, it doesn't effect audio.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 4:49:46 pm

[Bob Woodhead] "I thought that when you 1st expand audio, then apply trans, collapse audio, it doesn't effect audio.

"


You're correct, if you expand the clips then it is a video only dissolve


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 5:43:30 pm

[David Mathis] "...aggravates the (censored word of choice) out of me. Why does a cross dissolve affect both audio and video? Yes, there is a way to make a cross dissolve for audio only. Why can't there be one for video only? It irritates me big time to split the audio from the video to do so. Then you have to trim the two separately to get them back together. Why must this be? I am ready to jump ship to Resolve, right now"

For a video-only cross dissolve, you just do CTRL-S to expand the audio and video, apply the video-only transition, then CTRL-S again to collapse them. You can do multiple clips at once -- just select them, CTRL-S to expand, CTRL-T to apply video-only default cross-dissolve to all clips, then CTRL-S to collapse them. You can add a video-only cross dissolve to 20 clips at once, and it only takes a single keystroke to expand the clips, then a single keystroke to collapse them.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 6:57:08 pm

It is a shitty design, but I am trying to remember the last time I dissolved directly between two audio tracks. Maybe a quick ramp up or out, but I can do those faster with the little fader button on the audio track itself. Expand the tracks, pull one audio under another to your liking and use the "little fader button" on each side. When I think about it, yes, the software should include that. But in a practical sense, I have never missed it (of course, now that I know, I will miss it!).

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 7:00:53 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Expand the tracks, pull one audio under another to your liking and use the "little fader button" on each side. When I think about it, yes, the software should include that. But in a practical sense, I have never missed it (of course, now that I know, I will miss it!)."

I actually prefer this method to adding a straight dissolve transition


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 7:49:44 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Scott Witthaus] "Expand the tracks, pull one audio under another to your liking and use the "little fader button" on each side. When I think about it, yes, the software should include that. But in a practical sense, I have never missed it (of course, now that I know, I will miss it!)."

I actually prefer this method to adding a straight dissolve transition"


2nd


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 12:08:11 am

Ditto. It should be there, but it has forced me into better audio with asymmetric fades. I rarely ever do a symmetrical audio dissolve. I now tend to stretch out the outgoing audio of an interview as long as possible under the next edit, then fade it out, and do the same with the incoming, fading it in as soon as possible over the outgoing edit. Both the edits are done to the sample, and not to the frame.

And what everyone may have overlooked is that audio cross dissolves potentially interfere with the whole idea of the magnetic timeline. If you move a chunk of audio that is cross dissolved to another that isn't moving, which chunk keeps the dissolve? Neither? But If you instead are using fade handles, the audio elements exist on their own and can be moved about freely. The same holds true for video of course, but there are so many types of video transitions that it's not feasible anyway.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 9:12:59 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Expand the tracks, pull one audio under another to your liking and use the "little fader button" on each side"

The fade handles are so great, yet can be tedious when massaging the in/out points for making an asymmetrical dissolve (something that fcpx doesn't have without a whole lot of trickery).

I wish there was a kb shortcut to put a 3 frame (or selectable number) of fade handle on each side of the clip. Select an audio cut or adjoining clip, hit the button, and then trim handles (which are already kb selectable).

The cross dissolve, in my opinion, should not have any effect on audio because audio can be manipulated separately, and usually needs to be handled separately.

Sure, there are workarounds, like expanding everything, or using opacity handles on video, fade handles on audio, both of which take a much longer time than to simply hit a kb shortcut for a dissolve.

But, I will admit that the are transitions that are nice to be able to put on the top layer of a stack of video and have them all be effected. That does save time, but only if you need that function. Once you don't need that function, you spend a lot of time making weird compound layers to force a different order of composite.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 9:30:45 pm

After reading your post I thought up a new signature. Editing in FCP X is like playing Russian Egg Roulette as you never know when you will pick a raw egg.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 3:16:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I wish there was a kb shortcut to put a 3 frame (or selectable number) of fade handle on each side of the clip."

Simple. Do it on one clip first, save that as an effect preset, make it your default effect, bingo... ⌥E is your new best friend.

You just have to do it FIRST not LAST to avoid replacing any other changes to the audio you might have made.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 4:45:40 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "You just have to do it FIRST not LAST to avoid replacing any other changes to the audio you might have made."

I'm sorry, but this is a dramatic oversimplification of how editing works, and would quickly become an untenable workflow. I know you are smart enough to realize this, too.

If I employed this method, I have to do it to every new clip added in the timeline as you can't add Browser side effects (which is another area for criticism). So this means, if all clips have been further adjusted in the timeline and then I added a new clip that I want to add the 3 frame fades, then I would need a dummy clip on the timeline with the three frame fades, then find it, then copy it, then paste effects on the new clip, then adjust the audio to suit the timeline. This isn't an efficient workflow, wouldn't it be easier to simply have audio crossfades separate from video? I think so. Or a keyboard shortcut that allows you to add audio fades without damaging the other automation? I think so.

FCPX could be better. We all know this. It's OK to criticize it, I am still going to use it everyday, it's still my favorite NLE to use, and I hope it gets better.

There is no reason to have audio follow video on a dissolve by default. Maybe it can be an option, but not a default. "Muxed" (sic) audio, as Bill calls it, is still a separate entity. The audio department would be super upset if the audio adjusted every time the camera man adjusted exposure. Audio and video, even though they are grouped, are still separate. And now that syncing is so easy in almost any NLE,, and internal audio is obtuse on more cameras than ever, I receive more double system audio than I ever have.

It used to be the double system audio cost extra, now, with all the different cameras, menus, and recording formats, on-set audio engineers always record double system because it serves as a confidence recording. They KNOW that the audio they record with their recorder is going to be good, and are less sure about the camera audio.

Audio is very important to me, and FCPX could use a little help in this area, and it's OK for me to say so without having to question this "feature" of fading audio with video on a cross dissolve or transition. FCPX already has a great start, so let's take it further.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 5:08:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX could be better. We all know this. It's OK to criticize it, I am still going to use it everyday, it's still my favorite NLE to use, and I hope it gets better.

There is no reason to have audio follow video on a dissolve by default. Maybe it can be an option, but not a default."


My thoughts exactly. This is just a guess, but perhaps there is a large number of people who feel that an audio fade should be included with any transition, as it is now, that is not a cut. I can understand this viewpoint, to a reasonable extent, for more efficient editing. On the other hand, this is not the best approach.
I always prefer to have video and audio transitions as separate rather than combined. Look at Avid or Premiere Pro, they don't slap on a audio cross dissolve when adding a video transition. Earlier versions of FCP was the same way. They kept the two separate like it should have been from the beginning.

While expanding audio and video is the only method that "works" now, I find it annoying to do an extra step.
Perhaps it is the overall design concept of the magnetic timeline or Apple listening to people who are consumers not experienced editors or exposed to editing as we see it, not trying to belittle anyone here. Feel free to disagree. It just seems as Final Cut Pro X was made to be professional but made for consumers. Nothing wrong with that approach but there is room for improvement.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 5:19:50 pm

I think that all NLE's would benefit from increasing the ability to choose default behavior. These choices shouldn't be forced on activating a feature -- too much lost time and xtra clicking and confusion to light users -- but stored and accessible to the experienced editors who want to tailor the tool to match their workflow. Most NLE's have modifiable "default" transitions, this type of control should be used throughout the UI as much as possible. I don't know of any NLE that wouldn't benefit from more user control.

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: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46:00 pm

Part of the inherent problem in Apple's approach is often that they tend to not deploy a feature or tool precisely because someone else already has. Even if an Avid function would be beneficial, Apple will avoid using it because they "think different".

OTOH - Adobe unabashedly admits that they will borrow good ideas from anyone if it helps make Premiere Pro better.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 6:00:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Part of the inherent problem in Apple's approach is often that they tend to not deploy a feature or tool precisely because someone else already has. "

Don't skate to where the puck has already been? Or something. LOL


[Herb Sevush] "I don't know of any NLE that wouldn't benefit from more user control."

I actually get what Apple is up to by eliminating user choice in as many areas as possible. It's the most fundamental Apple ethos. It has been since Jobs got rid of that openness freak Wozniak and welded the case of the Mac shut in 1984. He conceded that people need to open their own computers when he returned, but there was certainly a relentless march to eliminate choice in as many other areas as possible.

It's certainly the basis of iOS, and the most fundamental way to describe the difference between "the Apple way" and everyone else.

The larger issue is that if Apple is the one making the most important decisions, they have to get them right. Here, they got it wrong....

...but I still think they'd argue that they got it right. Don't they always? LOL

Moreover, I think they'd argue that they've made a better NLE by in fact providing fewer options than it used to have, by eliminating workflows that it used to support, and closing off entire avenues of interop.

I certainly don't see anything in their 21st century experience that leads me to believe that more options are coming, even for something as simple as setting more kinds of defaults yourself. Those are usability and design decisions, and Apple has already decided that they want to be the ones making those decisions.

They don't want your filthy options cluttering up their elegant prefs pane, Herb. LOL

Not that I'm arguing that you're wrong. I'm just saying that I think Apple would say you're wrong, categorically. I'm amazed that anybody puts up with this kind of condescension from a company they pay, but, I can say as an Apple customer since 1979, it's the bargain that every Apple user makes: trading off respect for delight. LOL


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 2:54:21 am

Jeez. Only in a debate about NLE design would Having interface OPTIONS cause so many people to get their panties in such a giant wad of Agrievement

You don't like the number of gears Apple gives you - drive something else. It's simple

You want 15 gears between 1st and Drive, fine. Get a semi and be happy. I started driving with a 3 speed stick. Then got an automatic. Now I call Uber. Apple took away some of the choices I used to think I needed to get where I needed to go - and gave me in exchange a tool with a million new possibilities. To me that is NOT dumbing a thing down - it's giving ME the option to change my focus from things (like shifting) that computers are better suited to do - toward things like asset management that nobody BUT me knows how to leverage for my working style. The result of that decision, strange at first - now actually helps me work faster and smarter.

If X was the only tool sold for editing - then yes, Apple would be the big, nasty bully this thread implies. But it's not and they aren't. Period.

If AVID or Premiere or Vegas or Lightworks or Resolve or iMovie or Windows Movie Maker fit how YOU think about editing - have at it. Just turn out something interesting and you'll be fine.

Wallowing in that space where the big bully is oppressing your ability to create as you prefer - not by suppressing YOUR choice but rather by giving you different options that you're free NOT to choose - seems like you're willingly living your professional life inside a large, juicy, sour grape.

My 2 cents. Feel free to disagree. Legacy STILL functions. And Premiere is where you want to go if you want to keep editing like Legacy did it in the last decade (sorry about the bank account IV needle going OUT, but oh well.) Hey, you get he incremental improvements you used to scream for! But you'd better be able to explain how Apples choices ACTUALLY limited your options - rather than just adding ones you don't prefer. Cuz it appears you haven't earned a seat at the table where those decisions are made. Fancy that. If you're an A list director who any of the NLE companies actually listens to, good for you. The rest of us will just have to hope we're part of a big enough "hive mind" to get what we want and hope the result doesn't turn out to be death by committee.

Because bitching about having more choices? Just not the ones you expected? That makes Apple the big bad guy? Really?

You've been disrupted. Get used to it. Or not, I guess.


(Waiting for the smell of burning hair to waft in)


(( thanks for reading it - writing it was fun ))

Carry on.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 5:33:03 am

[Bill Davis] " I started driving with a 3 speed stick. Then got an automatic. Now I call Uber."

I drive a stick, had an automatic when my son was a teenager so he could drive it, after he flew the coop went right back to a stick. Wouldn't have it any other way.

[Bill Davis] "You don't like the number of gears Apple gives you - drive something else. It's simple"

I do.

[Bill Davis] " Only in a debate about NLE design would Having interface OPTIONS cause so many people to get their panties in such a giant wad of Agrievement"

What does it say about you that you are in favor of less options?

[Bill Davis] "Because bitching about having more choices? Just not the ones you expected? That makes Apple the big bad guy? Really?"

Apple isn't the bad guy, unquestioning lovers of Apple are the bad guy. People who refuse to hear any sort of criticism at all without losing their mind in a swirl of defensiveness are the bad guy. X gave you many more choices - great, but what's wrong with also asking for things like UI customization? Why do the options have to stop with the ones you prefer and why are the options others are asking for worthless.

Bitching is good, the squeaky wheel and all that crap - nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 6:35:53 am

1. Nothing wrong with classic approaches - in their place. But it still don't want my barber doing my surgery.
2. As to options, that's my point. If you get to pronounce that the topic is some feature they took out - I get to counter that I could lose three more features like that and it still wouldn't overbalanced th joy of range based tagging. You can keep spinning that the X glass is always half empty - but what's still IN the glass remains singularly refreshing! Also half a glass allows for more to come - so there's that.
3. Unquestioning? Nope, I ask questions all the time. I just discovered the polite form, rather than leading with "this is crap and why did you break it?" Makes it easier to get to the people who can help me learn about it. That's all.

As to your last point, someone smarter than me suggested it's a bad strategy to make perfect the enemy of the good.

Sure I want X to get better. And it has! But as you well know, I also like what IS right now. It'll be great as it gets better. But that lingering idea that it's somehow LESS than its competitors because Apple changed it is, to my mind, silly.

It's like expecting that autonomous Google car we're all expecting to show up some day to have a big old mechanical arm operating your beloved manual stick shift. It's just NOT going to happen.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 12:54:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sure I want X to get better. And it has! But as you well know, I also like what IS right now. It'll be great as it gets better. But that lingering idea that it's somehow LESS than its competitors because Apple changed it is, to my mind, silly."

How can something get better and stay the same?

I'm glad X is perfect for you, but why are you so against that quest for other people?

People who might bang on this software harder than you might need different functionality. What's wrong with that?

X was extremely weird when it first launched. Even though I liked it, I couldn't use X professionally for quite a while after it was released (I think it was nearly two years). There were certain parts of X that were simply unusable, and performance was deplorable on anything but the simplest of timelines. Even Apple knew it as they did something that they haven't done before or since, and that is explicitly state what was coming in future versions (fcpxml being one of them). It was smart of Apple as it was just enough info to keep me interested, otherwise I would have bailed. I had the luxury of waiting, and I used that time wisely to learn X's strengths, which at that time was the built in organization.

It also wasn't working well on a SAN back then. Most of that has changed and allowed me to use it, reliably, in a professional environment. So why is it wrong to raise more criticism on features that could be better?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 1:50:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "it's a bad strategy to make perfect the enemy of the good."

Now that it's morning on the Hudson, though a rather grey and cloudy morning with a bit of snow all around, I'd like to approach this whole notion of "options" a little differently.

First I will state unequivocally that I believe options are good and more options are better.

Then I'd like to suggest that we are discussing two different types of "options" - big"O" and small "o" --

The big Option concept is that with FCPX Apple has given the entire editing community a new Option in how an NLE can work - magnetic timeline, data based ranges, auditions, keywords -- new concepts, new methods and they should be applauded for giving editors options to work in a new way that might be more efficient and powerful for them.

The small option concept is that many editors like to customize, or in car parlance get "options", to make their given editing tool work more smoothly for them.

I understand that if the big "O" option of having FCPX matches your workflow and seems like a godsend, then the idea that people are going to make such a big fuss about the lack of small "o" customization in the UI seems trifling. However it is a truth that Apple has an overall design philosophy that minimizes UI options. It is not crazy to appreciate them for the big "O" success and then criticize them for the small "o" limitations.

I will add that each of the 3 major NLEs offers a distinct Option that the others lack: Avid, with the right hardware, is still the best team based system and if your working on something like a reality show it's really hard to beat. Ppro is dynamically linked and along with AE & Audtion allows for the kind of workflow that was written up in the DEADPOOL articles. FCPX is the most database driven with all the innovative features mentioned earlier along with what looks like the most active 3rd party ecosystem and the lowest price.

Like I said earlier - options are good things, more options are better.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 11:25:14 pm

Can't find ANYTHING to argue with in your post.

Please stop that.

; )

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: My major beef
on Feb 17, 2016 at 8:07:06 am

[Bill Davis] "1. Nothing wrong with classic approaches - in their place. But it still don't want my barber doing my surgery."

I dunno, if he's steady with a straight razor I'm sure he's steady with a scalpel. ;)


[Bill Davis] " You can keep spinning that the X glass is always half empty - but what's still IN the glass remains singularly refreshing! Also half a glass allows for more to come - so there's that. "


I'm less of a glass half empty/full type of guy and more of a hope for the best, but plan for the worst type of guy. It's a glass, it has water it in, hopefully it has enough but if it doesn't I'll have a plan for needing less water than anticipated and another plan for getting more water than we currently have. Speaking of water, you should see me plan for backcountry day hikes (I basically assume someone is going to be injured and alone in the backcountry for 8-12hrs w/o cell service, and possibly into the night, while their buddy hikes back to civilization for bring back help and I pack accordingly).

But I digress...

X is what it is, my workflows are what they are and when I think the two are compatible I'll put them together. My basic outlook on the situation hasn't changed from the day X launched. When I think it will meet my needs I'll use it. Feature-wise it's there for some projects, but another one of my needs is the ability to pay my rent and there aren't many gigs in my corner of the world looking for people to cut with X. It's Avid and a quickly growing amount of PPro. If X was a prime mover in my neck of the woods of course I would've learned it by now.

A couple of years ago I was getting ready to use X on a feature doc I was doing as a side project but life happened and I ended up using PPro instead. Now that I have a couple of years of PPro under my belt I probably going to use my next side project as an opportunity to learn X (assuming I don't inherent a project started in another NLE).


[Bill Davis] "As to your last point, someone smarter than me suggested it's a bad strategy to make perfect the enemy of the good.
"


I'm always up for a good plan today instead of a perfect plan tomorrow, but my last point wasn't about good vs perfect it was about using the best tool you have available.


[Bill Davis] "Can't find ANYTHING to argue with in your post.

Please stop that."


Yeah, I think Herb said it best.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 17, 2016 at 4:56:29 pm

You might give a listen to Richard Taylors FCP X Radio Show this week and his interview with Nuno Bernardo who is the CEO of a company that produces a lot of TV work in Europe.

http://fcpradio.com/episode007.html

It kinda follows the same pattern I've been talking about for YEARS now.

A working pro tries X and hates it. Something manages to pull them back to it - and it ends up being, hands down, their favorite NLE.

Perhaps pay particular attention to the part where he talks about supervising sessions with editors working with AVID and Premiere Pro. Hear that discomfort? That's the heart of what I've been talking about for years here.

If I had a dime for every story like this I've heard, I could buy myself a REALLY nice pair of socks.

The thing is SOMETHING has to break an editor's resistance to X, because it's so easy to simply "imagine" that it's not going to do what you need it to do.

And then you remain unable to accurately conceptualize what you MIGHT be missing.

That's all.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: My major beef
on Feb 18, 2016 at 10:37:32 pm

[Bill Davis] "You might give a listen to Richard Taylors FCP X Radio Show this week and his interview with Nuno Bernardo who is the CEO of a company that produces a lot of TV work in Europe.

http://fcpradio.com/episode007.html


Thanks Bill, I finally had a chance to finish listening to the podcast. It does sound similar to other profiles I've read/heard too at places like FCP.co.

What struck me the most about it was the things they discussed were many of the same things we discuss in this forum. Everything from sought after features such as a roles based mixer to the possibility of Avid-like multi-editor support to questioning Apples commit to the ProApps (and wishing Apple did more publicity to support X). The most serendipitous comments though were about missing features in the early days (such as multicam), how useful being able to force re-link would be, and a desire for Apple to loosen the handcuffs a little bit and give editors more options for control (all things that have been talked about this week alone here in our lovely home away from home!).

It's funny that the Nuno mentioned starting to cut home movies in X because I just did something similar recently and I have to say out of the box X has the best UI setup while using monitor (especially a small one like on a laptop). With that being said, PPro fits nicely on the 5K iMac i'm using at work right now. And I'm not meaning to insinuate that X is only good for home movies, it's just an opportunist way for me to get my feet wet right now.


[Bill Davis] "The thing is SOMETHING has to break an editor's resistance to X, because it's so easy to simply "imagine" that it's not going to do what you need it to do."

Agreed that some disruption or break has to occur to help be a catalyst for change, though t's not unique to users coming around to X. I saw similar things 13-14 years ago with FCP. Pretty much every Avid shop I worked at had FCP installed on a computer in the corner to mess around with and editors had it on their home systems (who could afford an Avid at home in those days?) but no one ever really considered using it for work until it got more features and something happened for them to think "well, maybe it's worth giving a shot."

The Mid 2000's seemed to be the tipping point for this (at least around LA). FCP became more feature filled, people had been using it on the side and were becoming more comfortable with it, HD was becoming the norm and Avids still cost an arm and a leg. For example, Shane Ross, IIRC, talked a company into using FCP over Avid because they were shooting on P2 and FCP had a much better workflow for P2 cards. I was at a post house that used Avid but they wanted to starting finishing in HD so they bought a single FCP station for that purpose because it was so much cheaper than Avid's offering at the time. Heck, I had always had Windows computers growing up (even built them as a hobby) but I ended up picking up a Mac just for FCP.

For a more recent catalyst, if Apple had released FCP 8 how many people that switched from 7 to MC or 7 to PPro would've still done so? My guess would probably be zero. FCP users would still be imagining that Avid was an ancient, overpriced piece of crap and that PPro was this thing bundled with After Effects that only alcoholic wedding videographers were forced to use because they couldn't run FCP on their $499 Dell Windoze machine. It's very telling of Apple's presence in the NLE market to say that the biggest break Avid and Adobe got in the last 15yrs was Apple EOLing FCP 7.


I found it interesting that Nuno (who sounds like he has a much deeper color grading background than editing background) still prefers using Resolve for color grading. Between ingrained habits and the more nuanced tools that Resolve offers he doesn't see grading in X as a better option.

Some obstacles are imaginary and some are real.

I used to grade a lot in FCP and Avid because I had no other options (this is before Apple Color and free Resolve) but I eventually became proficient at Apple Color and then going back to grading in an NLE felt incredibly cumbersome. I later acquired a hardware panel to use with Apple Color (a-maze-ing) and then using a keyboard and Wacom to grade in Color felt incredibly cumbersome and grading in an NLE felt downright barbaric. Maybe when I start using X more I'll have the same feeling with regards to editing. Maybe not. Time will tell.

Though unless we get a time machine and change history (or start an alternate reality timeline) I'm always going to be fairly confident that when X launched it would not have been a good fit at my job at the time where we had a 25 seat Xsan and required things like tape I/O (not FW), quality baseband video out for color grading if using the NLE, round tripping to Color, round tripping to Soundtrack Pro, etc., Later versions of X? Sure, they could've been a contender. Like Nuno said, it took a few releases before X started to become really viable (heck, didn't the Radical Media team run both Legend and X for years and they were on Apple's In Action page).


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 6:16:40 am

[Bill Davis] "Jeez. Only in a debate about NLE design would Having interface OPTIONS cause so many people to get their panties in such a giant wad of Agrievement "

That seems like an oddly worded statement. Wouldn't a debate about NLE design be an appropriate place to talk about things like UI options? I know there was supposed to be an exasperated insult in there somewhere but I'm just not seeing it.


[Bill Davis] "You don't like the number of gears Apple gives you - drive something else. It's simple"

Weren't you just pointing out the quote in Mitch Ives' signature telling everyone how great and useful is to debate conflicting ideas?


[Bill Davis] " it's giving ME the option to change my focus from things (like shifting) that computers are better suited to do - toward things like asset management that nobody BUT me knows how to leverage for my working style. The result of that decision, strange at first - now actually helps me work faster and smarter. "

I don't see how having the option to make a custom UI setting disallows the option of using the default settings. It's kinda like keyboard settings no? One is free to leave them all default if one wants, but there is the option of customizing the keyboard settings should one choose to do so.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 7:13:25 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Most NLE's have modifiable "default" transitions"

So which don't? Because FCP X sure does. Even meaning "modifiable" in the true sense of the word, unlike any other NLE I'm aware of.


[Oliver Peters] "Part of the inherent problem in Apple's approach is often that they tend to not deploy a feature or tool precisely because someone else already has. Even if an Avid function would be beneficial, Apple will avoid using it because they "think different"."

That sounds awfully "matter of factly". So I guess you have definitive proof of this?


[Tim Wilson] "by in fact providing fewer options"

So you think that FCP X overall has fewer options than 7? Okay. Would one be correct in assuming that you don't use FCP X or possibly never have beyond maybe a "test drive"? Because I couldn't disagree more. Unless of course you merely mean the preference pane. In which case, yeah... thank Maud for that. :D


[Tim Wilson] "even for something as simple as setting more kinds of defaults yourself. "

One of the many things they just did with the 10.2.3 update, yes.

- RK


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 7:26:52 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "One of the many things they just did with the 10.2.3 update, yes."

and it only took them 5 years :)


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 7:42:02 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "So which don't? Because FCP X sure does. Even meaning "modifiable" in the true sense of the word, unlike any other NLE I'm aware of."

Since I haven't tried every single NLE there is I didn't want to say "every" so I went with the more modest "most." I apologize if my dislike of hyperbole rubbed against your sense of victimization.

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: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 4:34:03 pm

[Steve Connor] "and it only took them 5 years :)"

[Herb Sevush] "I apologize if my dislike of hyperbole rubbed against your sense of victimization."







Which once again proves brilliantly, that I'M clearly the one with a "sarcasm and condescension" issue. Thanks.

It couldn't possibly be anything else playing into it on their end: http://bit.ly/1QjHPfs

:-D
- RK


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 5:55:13 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Which once again proves brilliantly, that I'M clearly the one with a "sarcasm and condescension" issue. Thanks.
"


I guess you just bring out the best in people


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 7:19:45 pm

[David Mathis] "Look at Avid or Premiere Pro, they don't slap on a audio cross dissolve when adding a video transition. Earlier versions of FCP was the same way."

Now, I haven't had an Avid gig in years, and I try to avoid Premiere, but isn't this based on what tracks are active? I seem to remember that if you had any audio track selected and added the default transition for a video dissolve, you got a dissolve on the video AND that audio track (which was a pain when you had a boatload of audio tracks). It's been a while but I seem to remember it that way.

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 8:26:03 pm

It has been several years since I used Avid so I am mistaken about transitions in there. If my understanding is now correct one can choose whether the transition is applied to audio, video or both. I admit confusion on my part. I would like this option in FCP X as well. So it is no longer a major beef, just a mild irritation.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 9:52:13 pm

[David Mathis] "If my understanding is now correct one can choose whether the transition is applied to audio, video or both."

Yes, by which track is active. The nice part, as Neil pointed out, is that the track was essentially locked out if it was not selected. The frustrating part comes by accidentally adding a dissolve to a selected audio track that might have been out of sight of the video track...or overwrite, insert etc.

My personal preference is the X way. I feel I can "see" the transition better.

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 9:16:33 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Now, I haven't had an Avid gig in years, and I try to avoid Premiere, but isn't this based on what tracks are active? I seem to remember that if you had any audio track selected and added the default transition for a video dissolve, you got a dissolve on the video AND that audio track (which was a pain when you had a boatload of audio tracks). It's been a while but I seem to remember it that way."

Yea, thats how it works by design - Wichever track's you have patched at the moment will be get a dissolve.

Thats something i really like about media composer - if a tracks not patched its basically locked. Cant add edit's, overwrite, etc, etc.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: My major beef
on Feb 16, 2016 at 12:07:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX already has a great start, so let's take it further."

That should be the rallying cry of the FCPX team!


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 8:17:08 pm

Thank you to all for your posts, including the one from Bill Davis, being very sincere here. I never thought about expand, transition and collapse approach. I did make that cross fade transition for the audio. On the other hand expanding the audio and video is a better approach. To some this might not be as efficient but it does give more flexibility, especially when you have a straight cut for the video. I revert a statement I made earlier and agree with Bill in his first post. I now like X again.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: My major beef
on Feb 14, 2016 at 10:27:41 pm

It seems that to correctly follow the FCPX paradigm, something other than an actual audio dissolve would be the proper design.

1. You need a video-only transition without expanding. Seems like a simple modifier to the existing effect command would accomplish this.

2. To do an audio-only crossfade, you actually need something that's just a macro. It would "invisibly" extend the two sides at the audio cut and add the appropriate fade to each, based on the entered duration.

3. And while we are at it, it would be nice if Apple adopted the Media Composer way of applying dissolves and crossfades. With FCPX as with PProCC, it's always a center default. In MC, a dialogue box opens that lets you apply a duration plus a value for the front part of the transition. So 30-tab-30-enter results in a 30 frame transition ending at the cut. 30-tab-0-enter results in a 30 frame transition starting at the cut. And any combination in-between.

4. Speaking of fade handles, it would sure be nice if FCPX borrowed from Logic Pro X in how fades are applied. That's a far more intuitive and less "fiddly" way to apply them.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: My major beef
on Feb 15, 2016 at 8:48:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "1. You need a video-only transition without expanding. Seems like a simple modifier to the existing effect command would accomplish this."

Based on the length of this thread and the overall agreement, I think Apple should...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: My major beef
on Feb 17, 2016 at 7:58:25 am

The word from Apple at the creative summit has been the same word we always get when we ask about specific features: "We're aware of that."then silence.

So I know nothing beyond that.

Apple, of course, since X v1 has allowed you to do inserts of video only or audio only with a simple Shift 1, 2 and 3 - so the IDEA of limiting an action to one type of content is already baked into X.

And separately, of course, some type of roles based mixer has had a hallowed place near the top of Richard Taylors features request list for years now. And it's a fact that Apple is aware of THAT as well.

And Apple was just VERY recently awarded that patent for audio mixer technology inside a video NLE.

So decoding the breadcrumbs as always, is what remains.

And I don't now about you guys, but my historical batting average on decoding Apple clues about features to come wouldn't even get me picked LAST for a little league team.

And so it goes.

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

Andy Field
Re: My major beef
on Apr 8, 2016 at 8:37:29 pm

we used to be able to just control click on the audio or video or unlink the two with a keyboard short cut - add the effect - done

is it that hard to put that into FCP X when it's something most editors do every day?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: My major beef
on Apr 9, 2016 at 11:33:04 am

[Andy Field] "unlink the two with a keyboard short cut - add the effect - done"

How can you not do the exact same thing with X as it stands?

- RK

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


Return to posts index

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