FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X Explained…

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Robin S. Kurz
FCP X Explained…
on Oct 14, 2016 at 4:17:59 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 14, 2016 at 4:20:47 pm

Quite possibly the best, comprehensive and astute comparison and highlighting of old and new that I have seen to date. (both live and now "on tape") Bravo Jesús. Well done!







Nuff said. You see so many things that make you (well, me) go "Why was it ever that way and… how could it possibly still be that way??" … though fortunately not in X. Whew.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 14, 2016 at 4:31:04 pm

I'm amazed we ever coped before FCPX and default ripple mode


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 14, 2016 at 4:40:50 pm

No kiddin'. I'm in fact so completely detached from "legacy mode" that I honestly cannot figure out how I could ever have thought that was a really great and/or efficient way to work. Or accept that it in fact WAS at the time. And that for a period of almost ten years... ???

O_o

Oddly bizarre, in retrospect.

But not nearly as bizarre as the thought that anyone would actually and voluntarily choose to continue down that same path. Wow. It's like seeing someone shun an automobile and haughtily climb onto their horse-carriage. ?

- RK

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


Return to posts index


Darren Roark
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 14, 2016 at 7:26:53 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "But not nearly as bizarre as the thought that anyone would actually and voluntarily choose to continue down that same path. Wow. It's like seeing someone shun an automobile and haughtily climb onto their horse-carriage. ?"

The articles from back in the day saying horseless-carriages are a fad are just as interesting as the mid nineties interviews with editors saying they could work faster on a Kem than an Avid.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 14, 2016 at 10:44:10 pm

A nice presentation, but fundamentally skewed to pitch his preference for FCPX. The definition of linear versus nonlinear in NLE software is flawed. By presenting the use of "modifier keys" as some sort of hidden function is clearly a way to present that operation in a negative light. And how is track-patching any different than connected clips? In fact it's worse, because connected clips don't carry the same attributes as storyline clips. There really is no "old" style versus "new" style. There's simply one way of designing the software versus another way.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 15, 2016 at 2:07:42 am

After ten years on Legacy and now five years on X, it feels VERY different to me.

Knowing what is established as the default action in an NLE is a pretty clear indicator of the softwares design ethic.

I've got to imagine somebody learning X first, would see the modified-keystrokes needed to do something as basic as "ripple delete" as added complexity.

And that goes double for actions that can destroy prior decisions outside the area being currently viewed. That's just poor design, in retrospect.

I say "in retrospect", because like everyone else, I didn't know it was missing until X showed me a different possibility.

It's clear traditional NLEs did things in a somewhat simplistic fashion based on what was possible in the early days of NLE design and in later iterations those processes were adapted to work as the editors needed via modifier keys.

All software gets better over time. Nothing weird about that at all.

It's called "software development" for a reason.

My 2 cents.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 9:31:30 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 9:36:45 am

[Bill Davis] "It's clear traditional NLEs did things in a somewhat simplistic fashion based on what was possible in the early days of NLE design"

I think you may have missed the part in the very beginning (around 1:38) where he actually explained WHY he thinks NLEs were designed to work the way they did. They were simply trying to mirror the way ANALOG editing was done as closely as possible to appeal to film and most of all TAPE editors, with complete disregard for what was or could have been possible or even better for that matter if they didn't. Essentially they didn't want to scare people away from giving it a try and not have to rack their brains too much about the logic behind it, since the paradigm was so familiar, lest intuitive and as efficient as possible by embracing ALL the advantages of working digitally. Because it's not like what FCP X e.g. does with the magnetic timeline wouldn't have been just as well possible back in the 80's and 90's.

Basically the same as if the inventors of the automobile hadn't gone with gas and brake pedals, but rather had people yell "Hiiiyaaaa!" to get it moving and "Brrrrr!" to slow or stop it. ?

So, for me, that's essentially the exact opposite of what Apple (fortunately) did with X. They were the first and only to NOT have the established approaches of yester-decades dictate how to do things, but had the courage (yeah, courage) to rethink matters. They, so far, are imho the only ones to recognize that those workflows are far less productive and efficient in today's and future market of 100% digital workflows. The "how would we do it and like it to work" as opposed to the above "how can we blindly appease our audience sans any improvements, to avoid an avalanche of whining".


[Herb Sevush] "the issue is that you can't have it only when you want it, it's all or nothing"

Ouch. That's just… oh never mind.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 15, 2016 at 6:03:03 am

[Oliver Peters] "A nice presentation, but fundamentally skewed to pitch his preference for FCPX."

Understatement of the year. My favorite part is when he quotes David Lawrence at the beginning of his pitch, about whom there is no greater critic of the paradigm of X. Talk about quoting someone out of context.

[Oliver Peters] "The definition of linear versus nonlinear in NLE software is flawed"

It's not flawed, it's flat wrong. Non-linear means you can freely take any piece of source material and slap it any where you want it, it does not mean ripple mode is somehow more "non-linear" than overwrite mode. Non-linear bows to the editors intent, it does not insist than one kind of intent is better than another.

It would also be nice, in a nod to historical accuracy, to mention that over the years linear editing developed tools - most notably "Trace" - that allowed editors to begin re-approaching the non-linear nature of film editing while still restricted to tape. It lacked the speed of true non-linear, but allowed for the same type of freedom. The editing world was not as binary as was presented.

[Oliver Peters] "By presenting the use of "modifier keys" as some sort of hidden function is clearly a way to present that operation in a negative light"

And it has not always been the case that all tracked NLEs defaulted to overwrite mode. Edit* for instance allowed you to switch your overall "mode" between overwrite and ripple - neither was the default. Individual tools did not have defaults they would simply act one way in overwrite mode (trim edit) another way in ripple mode (ripple trim). The editor switched between modes with a single key and each mode was equally weighted.

[Oliver Peters] "There really is no "old" style versus "new" style. There's simply one way of designing the software versus another way."

Amen to that.

And finally - I can't think of any editor who wouldn't want the magnetic timeline at certain points in his work, the issue is that you can't have it only when you want it, it's all or nothing, and while it would be great to have that kind of ease in moving clips around the timeline in the exact scenario demonstrated, that is not the way I spend most of my time as an editor.

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: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 15, 2016 at 2:45:11 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 15, 2016 at 2:57:18 pm

[Oliver Peters] "A nice presentation, but fundamentally skewed to pitch his preference for FCPX."

An FCP editor, at an FCP event, showing/comparing FCP's paradigm and highlighting its clear advantages to other FCP editors. Wow. What a completely surprising conclusion!

When and where is he selling this as anything BUT an opinion piece? To imply it is anything else, just as a cheap means of discrediting him and his personal opinions, would be amazingly disingenuous. Never mind that I have no clue as to how one even skews one's own opinion. ?


[Oliver Peters] "The definition of linear versus nonlinear in NLE software is flawed."

One where he clearly states "my own definition of what linear editing is". Not the definition. And even if he hadn't, how is that even vaguely relevant to his overall point of the demo? What does that change? Red-herring anyone? Anyone's interpretation of linear or non-linear, green or blue, briefs or boxers would not change anything about the simple every day operations he demoed in each app and their painfully huge differences in terms of handling.

The whole thing is essentially exactly this, only substituting 7 with PPro.







In which case I don't even care what it's called. I call it hilarious. In a painful kind of way.


[Oliver Peters] "By presenting the use of "modifier keys" as some sort of hidden function is clearly a way to present that operation in a negative light. "

Er… yes? That pretty much describes it perfectly. Well put and 100% right. Because I have no idea how one can say that effectively hiding functionality, which is by far the most preferred and most common of the two operations, under a modifier key is a positive thing. Other than "because that's what I'm used to and change is categorically icky!" Otherwise do explain how needing a modifier key (that I have seen 80+% of PPro users don't even know about!) isn't negative.

Oh wait… ripple editing suddenly isn't what a real "pro" wants to do 9 out of 10 times, just skateboard video noobies? A "pro" wants gaps after gaps after gaps and finds taking two (or more) steps to do the same thing far more "pro" and efficient. ?

For me, the operation he demos at around 9:30 alone is the epitome of what is so utterly idiotic about a track-based system. It could've stopped there. Nuff said.


[Oliver Peters] "And how is track-patching any different than connected clips?"

You can't be serious. ? If there's anything in X that can somehow be misconstrued to be "like patching" by any stretch of the imagination, then maybe ROLES. But other than that, sorry, to suggest the one has anything to do with the other is just ridiculous imho.


[Oliver Peters] "In fact it's worse, because connected clips don't carry the same attributes as storyline clips."

¿Huh? Attributes? Wha?


[Oliver Peters] "There really is no "old" style versus "new" style."

Now you're just making stuff up. Otherwise feel free to quote the timecode at the point he said anything even close to "new style" or "old style". He was comparing paradigms, not styles. And no, they're not synonyms, sorry to say.

- RK

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 15, 2016 at 8:14:39 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Because I have no idea how one can say that effectively hiding functionality, which is by far the most preferred and most common of the two operations, under a modifier key is a positive thing."

I don't get how this is "hiding". It's a simple matter of actually learning the application along with setting up the preferences. One could equally say that using the Position mode in FCPX is "hidden". There are certain plenty of newbie posts here on the COW by folks who overlooked that function. The presentation was versus Premiere Pro, but if you pull Media Composer into the discussion, the actions of the Smart Tool are quite a bit different and behavior can be customized and be as contextual as you like.

[Robin S. Kurz] "You can't be serious"

I'm absolutely serious. Track patching AND the use of connected clips creates a vertical compositing hierarchy for video and a summing function for audio. You have similar steps to follow if you want video-only, audio-only or audio/video edits. Seems like a pretty analogous operation to me.

[Robin S. Kurz] "¿Huh? Attributes? Wha?"

For example, you cannot add a transition to a connected clip without it becoming a secondary storyline, even if just for one clip. To transition between two connected clips, they both have to be in the same secondary storyline.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Now you're just making stuff up. Otherwise feel free to quote the timecode at the point he said anything even close to "new style" or "old style"."

That was really directed at the sentiment of the first few comments in this thread and not so much the presenter. However, he does position other NLEs as "classic", which can easily be interpreted as code for "old".

[Robin S. Kurz] "The whole thing is essentially exactly this, only substituting 7 with PPro."

I would certainly agree that clip swapping is a very sweet feature of FCPX making the magnetic timeline the marquee function for the app. However, in actual practice I rarely find that clip-swapping is done once the timeline is built to a complex level. So it's a nice demo, that doesn't really make a whole lot of difference in the real world.

It also doesn't become very useful, when you move a clip 10 minutes down on the timeline to a place within the first minute. Far easier to paste-insert than drag clips around. The FCPX timeline is far too cumbersome (sluggish) and finicky to do this on a large project.

In addition, much of the time, connected clips are not connected to the clip you are trying to move. Rather, they are connected to the last part of the preceding clip. This means you spend extra time changing the connection points before ever moving a clip around together with its corresponding connected clips.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 3:24:34 am

In spite of all the negative and learned responses to this video, it makes some sense to me. Maybe it is because my projects are not generally at the complexity of a feature film. When I was using FCP7 and had to do a lot of locking and unlocking of tracks, I found that to be very time consuming and even irritating. With X the ability to slide clips around during the assembly stage in a very transparent way is a big positive. Also I hated the clip collision issue in FCP7.

Also his analogy between cutting film on a flat bed and FCPX that treat time differently than the tape approach for early video editing and PPro made a lot of sense.

As always, though I enjoyed the impassioned arguments that followed. Perhaps that is something that just flows from the contributors being an editors and interested in the smallest nuances.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 4:59:30 pm

BTW - just so we don't get too wrapped up in the tracks versus... issue, it's worth noting that broadcast-oriented NLE products started with the Quantel Harry, developed in 1985 (before Avid). In its original incarnation, it used a filmstrip metaphor instead of a track-based timeline. Not as elegant as the FCPX magnetite timeline, but certainly the same concept with clips linked to each other in succession, rather than against time.



- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Claude Lyneis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 5:34:13 pm

Oliver: To quote a popular Youtube channel, everything is a remix. This applies to many of Apple's best products including their mouse driven interface and the ipod. In this view, FCPX is hardly revolutionary, but it was certainly a step in a different direction, which continues to be an issue in editing circles years later.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 6:34:40 pm

[Claude Lyneis] "everything is a remix"

Absolutely. But, since there seems to be this ongoing need after 5 years to still explain the software, I have to gently wonder - and I don't mean this as a criticism of any particular person or idea - was something inherently wrong or missing in the product design? Clearly there are many people - both experienced and newbies - who simply don't grok the application. And it's usually not for want of trying.

In my own mind, software is a very personal thing and you can't arbitrarily or objectively say something is better or faster. It depends on the project or the person. In that sense, picking an NLE is no different than preferring to write with Word versus Pages or the other way around. For example, I'm currently on a project where I'm bouncing among FCPX, Resolve and Premiere Pro, because each is more appropriate for a portion of the job than the others.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 8:06:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "software is a very personal thing and you can't arbitrarily or objectively say something is better or faster. "

Sure you can.

You can say that it is faster for you. Or you can compare the same exact task Like the swapping video.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 8:24:33 pm

[Tony West] "Or you can compare the same exact task Like the swapping video."

I should clarify. I didn't really mean specific functions, because you can definitely pick an item in any given app and point out that it's faster. I was talking more in general terms, like overall workflows, which tend to be more specific to users and/or projects.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 9:38:47 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 12:32:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "it used a filmstrip metaphor instead of a track-based timeline"

:-)))
Right. And that has what to do with anything? Substituting one point with an inane "Apple didn't invent the phone!"-style 'issue' gets us where exactly? I'm actually surprised to see you of all people bring something like that up. By that logic I guess every motorcycle today isn't a REAL motorcycle or "original", since it's not a Mercedes motorcycle? Hmmm... what about the wheel? Tough one.

Why not go straight back to Xerox Parc while we're on the subject and diss Apple for any and everything they've ever done for GUI design or the Mac? Because, you know, they only stole everything, as they did the entire FCP paradigm, right? But then let's at least be consistent and take PPro into the equation! Look at those shameless plagiarists! Wow. ?

Completely irrelevant to the discussion and quite the logical fallacy imho. The only thing that's relevant in any of the above examples in the end is how they are done, which is what sets them apart. Otherwise do tell us what actually deserves the "never seen before and never done before" moniker nowadays. Oh right… nothing. Pointless, circular argument du jour I'd say. One that doesn't lend anything of substance to the discussion that at least I can recognize.

- RK


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 12:06:01 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Oliver Peters] "it used a filmstrip metaphor instead of a track-based timeline"
Right. And that has what to do with anything? .....
...Completely irrelevant to the discussion and quite the logical fallacy imho."


Actually not. It's helpful to understand what got the software to this point. The premise of the presentation was that NLEs prior to FCPX were all based on a linear tape editing approach. That's an erroneous point to start from. In the early days of NLEs, there was a fair amount of experimentation with design and interface. Many of these, such as Harry, Ediflex, Montage and others weren't really track-based at all. They also relied on the clip-linked-to-clip method. Others like Avid adopted a mixture of approaches borrowed from film, multimedia and linear tape systems.

In addition, linear tape editing was based on time and a timeline in the sense that a physical tape with timecode provided these constraints. However, there was no analogue for vertical video tracks or even more than 4 audio tracks. This is a solution that is unique to NLEs and not linear tape. Unless, of course, you consider a video switcher to somehow be the vertical composting portion of the linear system. That, too, would be inaccurate, as a switcher would be more analogous to nodes in this metaphor.

Avid happened to win out in the early marketplace and others followed many of its interface functions. But there was a weeding out process along the way with other competing solutions. So, bringing up historical approaches is valid, as it corrects part of the basic premise of the presentation.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 6:12:36 am

[Oliver Peters] "it's worth noting that broadcast-oriented NLE products started with the Quantel Harry, developed in 1985"

I remember my brother showing me the Quantel Henry he used back in the day. As much of a paradigm shift from my Avid and linear days as was the shift from Legacy to X.

http://scottgfx.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 12:23:02 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I don't get how this is "hiding"."

It's what's called "intuitiveness" and "usability". Is the (by far most likely) needed functionality I need right there? No it is not. It is "hiding" under shortcuts etc. In X, no shortcuts no switching no fiddling with prefs yadda yadda yadda… it's there. Done.

Saying "learn the app!" also doesn't cut it, since the underlying point is exactly that: you don't have to learn any modifier keys or other (unmarked, unexplained) extra tools to make things work most efficiently i.e. to do what it in fact is you want to do and they way it should be done. Never mind that Jesús shows in the video quite wonderfully, that even if you DO know of whatever modifier or tool, you more often than not can't even DO the ripple! "Clip collision!" is the key here, and exactly what sets the functionality apart by a million miles and what I think shows brilliantly the definition of the difference between his linear and non-linear he talks about. In fact the exact point where your supposed "patching = connected clip" claim backfires big time as well. It shows how connected clips have exactly nothing to do with the whole nonsensical, outdated, yesteryear concept of patching.


[Oliver Peters] "One could equally say that using the Position mode in FCPX is "hidden"."

Tell me, Oliver, when and how often do you need the position tool and for what? Especially when compared to needing to RIPPLE, which this is about? Can I guess? And how could the position tool even be misconstrued to be anywhere near as essential in one's everyday workflow, any more than the ZOOM tool?

Oh wait. „It's a simple matter of actually learning the application", after which even the noobiest noob would never miss the functionality. But then I guess that only applies to Premiere? ? Tell me how and why it is somehow apparently essential that noobs of all people just have to know about the position tool? Because you obviously have something specific in mind, no? Just please don't tell me it's because they need to be able to use X the way it's not meant to be used, because they don't "actually learn the application" as you so correctly recommend. Because I for one have maybe used the position tool TWICE and one of those times was for mere demonstration purposes. So much for essential or "need to know".


[Oliver Peters] "the actions of the Smart Tool…"

Are the most convoluted, unyielding and unintuitive I have seen to date. But I guess I simply haven't actually learned the app? Which I guess goes for nearly every long time Avid editor I know, since almost none of them seem to even know it exists when I ask, seeing that it was just plunked down in a random update a while back, with little to no explanation (or so they say). They ignore it because they are fine just going on as usual, or just plain don't get it with the whole red/yellow(?) mode or whatever that is. Nor have I gotten it, but then I don't edit on Avid so it doesn't matter. Either way it's certainly far from sit-down-and-work functionality which this is about.

Oddly, after about two clicks and no explanations, setting of prefs, fiddling elsewhere in the app, I completely got how matters work in the magnetic timeline. As do 99% of my students. Go figure.


[Oliver Peters] "You have similar steps to follow if you want video-only, audio-only or audio/video edits. Seems like a pretty analogous operation to me."

Oh come on, Oliver. It most definitely is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination! That's ridiculous! I don't care if you want to do a video-only, audio-only or audio/video edit, at NO point whatsoever do you run the risk of inadvertently overwriting ANYTHING unless you do it on purpose! You edit what you want when you want to wherever you want, WITHOUT doing some ridiculous mouse-clicking dance (after two or three command-z's of course, because you forgot the first time!) patching, locking or what not else before doing your edit. Or of course you DRAG your clip, hovering over the timeline waiting (hoping) for the right tracks to highlight before you drop so things don't eff up… again.


[Oliver Peters] "For example, you cannot add a transition to a connected clip without it becoming a secondary storyline, even if just for one clip. To transition between two connected clips, they both have to be in the same secondary storyline."

I'm sorry… what's your point? Seriously. I don't get it. To be able to transition between two clips in the primary they have to be in the primary. To do it in Premiere they have to be in the same V-track... what does any of that have to do with "attributes"? How is any of that different in principle from any other NLE or is somehow (apparently) a negative in such a stand-out way as you're trying to suggest??! Just because connected clips get a "shelf" when transitioning?? Again… I have no idea what game changing "attribute" you're getting at.


[Oliver Peters] "However, he does position other NLEs as "classic", which can easily be interpreted as code for "old"."

Well, yeah. Everyone wants to read whatever connotation into it that they want to I guess. Others just interpret it to mean "usual" or "most common" or "best known" or… but then there'd be nothing ominous to take offense to I guess. ?


[Oliver Peters] "However, in actual practice I rarely find that clip-swapping is done once the timeline is built to a complex level."

Then I guess you work completely differently than me and everyone I know. Has been know to happen.


[Oliver Peters] "It also doesn't become very useful, when you move a clip 10 minutes down on the timeline to a place within the first minute. Far easier to paste-insert than drag clips around. The FCPX timeline is far too cumbersome (sluggish) and finicky to do this on a large project."

I love this. You're talking about functionality that is factually not even possible elsewhere in the same way, in particular PPro, but still manage to construct some exception along the lines of "Yeah, it's nice… but actually useless". :-)))) Especially after I've been lead to believe "that clip-swapping is[n't] done once the timeline is built to a complex level". So is it or isn't it?? I'm confused. But then even your paste-insert wouldn't work as needed or expected in PPro either more often than not, so even if I were reduced to that (which I never have been)… erm, so? At least it works!

Has it occurred to you, that everyone wants to avoid swapping clips if at all possible, since that is ("classically") an inordinate PITA, as the video illustrates beautifully? It has to me. I've been there, done that. Five years ago. Never again.


[Oliver Peters] "In addition, much of the time, connected clips are not connected to the clip you are trying to move. Rather, they are connected to the last part of the preceding clip. This means you spend extra time changing the connection points before ever moving a clip around together with its corresponding connected clips."

So now you're trying to sell us that ONE SIMPLE ALT-COMMAND CLICK on a clip to move the connection to where I need it before the move is some sort of laborious, time intensive task?? ? Seriously… now you're trying way too hard. Because that is just plain absurd.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 1:02:16 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Oliver Peters] "One could equally say that using the Position mode in FCPX is "hidden"."

Tell me, Oliver, when and how often do you need the position tool and for what?"


Seriously? Not everything's a ripple edit!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 1:13:16 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 1:17:36 pm

[Steve Connor] "Seriously? Not everything's a ripple edit!"

Er... then feel free to answer the question and not just quote it? Seriously.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 1:21:58 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Steve Connor] "Seriously? Not everything's a ripple edit!"

Er... then feel free to answer the question and not just quote it? Seriously.
"


Whenever I want to change, move or trim a shot in the primary without rippling the timeline!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 1:29:27 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 1:31:02 pm

To then do what? Example? What's e.g. happening or going to happen with the gaps that you're obviously creating with your move and/or trim? (I don't know what "change" means in that context)

And I think you're interpreting the question as my somehow suggesting no one EVER needs the position tool, which is obviously nonsense. In which case I think you need to go back and understand the context better.

- RK


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 2:41:55 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "And I think you're interpreting the question as my somehow suggesting no one EVER needs the position tool, which is obviously nonsense. In which case I think you need to go back and understand the context better."

This quote of yours, from a now deleted post, might shed some light on his misunderstanding:

Robin S. Kurz:
"Tell me how and why it is somehow apparently essential that noobs of all people just have to know about the position tool? Because you obviously have something specific in mind, no? Just please don't tell me it's because they need to be able to use X the way it's not meant to be used, because they don't "actually learn the application" as you so correctly recommend. Because I for one have maybe used the position tool TWICE and one of those times was for mere demonstration purposes. So much for essential or "need to know"."

deleted post
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/91370

I'm sure it must be amazing that anyone would think you ever said something like that just because you deleted it after you posted it. It's so "obviously nonsense" that you unsaid it after you said it and are now trying to pretend it never happened.

Bravo.

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: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 4:26:20 pm

Not taking sides in this, but honestly Herb, I think it's really questionable to call someone out over a post they've subsequently deleted.

Most of us here have occasionally posted something that, on reflection, we wouldn't have if we'd given it more thought.

That's why delete is a thing.

And it's something I think should be respected on all sides.

Just my 2cents.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 4:52:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Most of us here have occasionally posted something that, on reflection, we wouldn't have if we'd given it more thought.

That's why delete is a thing.

And it's something I think should be respected on all sides."


True with one caveat, if someone sees and responds to a post before it is deleted the original poster can't pretend he never said it and that the other person is wacky. If Robin hadn't challenged Steve about it
Then I would respect his deletion.

But this --

RSK: "And I think you're interpreting the question as my somehow suggesting no one EVER needs the position tool, which is obviously nonsense. In which case I think you need to go back and understand the context better."

was written after he deleted it.

I was just helping everyone to understand the context better. It's called honesty. You can't have it both ways, you can't delete something and then insist it's the other person that's having a problem when he mentions it.

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: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 4:58:37 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 5:00:55 pm

Yeah, THIS is what deleted looks like, or can look like… memorize it.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27:07 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 4:37:41 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I'm sure it must be amazing that anyone would think you ever said something like that just because you deleted it after you posted it."

Wow. What's amazing is that nasty unexpected setback for you there, Herby!! There you go with your usual, pointless, inflammatory bs and adscititious personal attacks to feel all tough-guy-in-the-know, with otherwise nothing of value to add in addition to being the only one here that doesn't even use FCP therefore can only be considered a bonified troll, and bam… you run straight, full force into a wall with it. Ouchy. Because I hate to break it to ya bud, but neither did I delete the post, nor is it deleted. Oooh. Bummers. And you tried so so hard!

But I'm sure that isn't about to stop you from your usual and continued banter. Certainly not someone afraid of embarrassing himself, so it should continue to stay "interesting".

- RK


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 5:05:16 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] " Because I hate to break it to ya bud, but neither did I delete the post, nor is it deleted. Oooh. Bummers. And you tried so so hard!"

When something is posted on the Cow and e-mailed out to subscribers it is time stamped. Your original post was time stamped 8:23, then it disappeared for a while, then I posted at 10:43, then your original post reappeared time stamped at 11:53. Hey, maybe Tim took it down for some reason, but isn't it funny that your post to Steve happened right in that window when your post was removed.

In any event, if you didn't remove your post then how do you square up your two statements?


8:23am
Robin S. Kurz:
" ... Because I for one have maybe used the position tool TWICE and one of those times was for mere demonstration purposes. So much for essential or "need to know".

9:29am
[Robin S. Kurz] "And I think you're interpreting the question as my somehow suggesting no one EVER needs the position tool, which is obviously nonsense. In which case I think you need to go back and understand the context better."

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 6:29:59 am

Oh wow. I feel like I'm back in 1992 on the Fidonet Commodore Amiga Echo. The PC and Mac users visiting, telling the Amiga users how dumb they are for using their chosen system. It's not a holy war guys! Some people still use Speed Razor and Discrete *Edit. It's just a tool.

http://scottgfx.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 4:55:51 pm

I find myself using the position tool for moving VO or music from a connected clip to the primary. Usually when replacing one or the other. I could use the cmd opt down arrow but it doesn't work if you've trimmed the connected clips to a subframe level. But with the P tool you can hold shift and it will snap them to the nearest frame as you drag them to the primary.

Beyond that I don't find myself using it much but not because full time ripple is a good idea, but because only a small part of the interface is in full ripple mode- storylines. Usually all my fx and b-roll are just connected clips until transitions or further finishing is needed. Moving them around is the same with or without the p tool. My primary is the vocal backbone and may get trimmed, but rarely requires the P tool.

The interface really wouldn't be all that different if the P tool was the default for me as I don't move stuff around in the primary, and the rough edit tools already reflect overwrite, insert, connect, etc.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com Plugins & Templates for FCP X Editors & Motion Graphics Artists


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:12:41 pm

[Bret Williams] "I find myself using the position tool for moving VO or music from a connected clip to the primary."

I'm trying to understand why you would want to do that if the VO/music is your "primary" reference to begin with. Wouldn't it then already be in the primary (where you can just as well edit subframe) in that case?

[Bret Williams] "The interface really wouldn't be all that different if the P tool was the default for me as I don't move stuff around in the primary, and the rough edit tools already reflect overwrite, insert, connect, etc."

Judging by that description, it wouldn't in fact change anything, no. ? The Position tool would be (is) functionally completely pointless as a whole for you by the sound of it. Which kinda was my point. Whether it's "hidden" or not, no one really needs it in the end anyway. ?

Unlike ripple functionality.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:57:56 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Whether it's "hidden" or not, no one really needs it in the end anyway."

The position tool is for more than just moving clips around with ripple mode. It's also used when trimming, where you may not want everything to ripple. In fact, I was finalizing an edit today and spent half the time going into "position" mode to make some trims, then hitting P to get out of it for others.

To say that no one needs or it's unnecessary shows a complete lack of understanding or imagination in regards to other people's workflows or methods of working.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 9:48:47 pm

[Michael Hancock] "To say that no one needs or it's unnecessary shows a complete lack of understanding or imagination in regards to other people's workflows or methods of working."

Right. That is if you completely disregard the fact that it was brought up specifically in the context of "noobs" needing it. So I guess you're agreeing that that is the case? Or are we talking out of context now? In which case I might refer to my post further up where I clearly said that that isn't what I was implying, since that obviously would be nonsense, yes. But thanks for the valuable assertion.

And never mind the emoji at the end that you chose to exclude from the quote. That couldn't have provided any further clarity, I know.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 10:19:21 pm

To quote your earlier post:

[Robin S. Kurz] " I for one have maybe used the position tool TWICE and one of those times was for mere demonstration purposes. So much for essential or "need to know"."

I read this as, you don't use it, therefore it's unnecessary. Or perhaps that was hyperbole? In which case, how does that advance the conversation? Or perhaps you were referring still to noobs here? For me, the ease-of-use for an amateur is of little consequence to me - I want an edit system that is fast, deep, and gets out of my way when I edit. If that means I have to use a modifier, so be it. I mean, I have to use a modifier to "go to in" and "go to out" in FCPX, and that's a pretty important function in my day to day life. There are aspects of FCPX that have greatly improved my day to day editing, but there are still massive improvements that could be made. Do you agree with that, or is the app perfect as is?

The idea that your way is the right way and others are doing it wrong is a common element to your posts Robin. It seems that, if you can't understand why a person would do something a certain way, or you don't like they way they do it, then it's the wrong way and they're wrong. Perhaps I'm just reading your posts wrong, but they come across as very condescending and dismissive most of the time, and I feel like it limits what could otherwise be a interesting and honest conversation about FCPX and it's strengths and weaknesses, particularly in regards to the design choices Apple has made and whether they are an improvement over the classic NLE design, given different workflows.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 1:44:04 am

[Michael Hancock] "Perhaps I'm just reading your posts wrong, but they come across as very condescending and dismissive most of the time, and I feel like it limits what could otherwise be a interesting and honest conversation about FCPX and it's strengths and weaknesses, particularly in regards to the design choices Apple has made and whether they are an improvement over the classic NLE design, given different workflows."

Having been relentlessly accused of the same thing (being condescending) for years here, I'll just note that some of it might be the disconnect between the actual experience of some of us as "early adopters" - who saw a whole lot to like in the X approach, but had to undergo months and months and months of relentlessly having our experience, viewpoints and actual professional competency questioned. Relentlessly.

What I often thought I was doing was reacting to the constant onslaught of mis-information about X from people who very often actually didn't really understand the program very well.

Sometimes, I'm sure I projected that onto people who DID know what they were arguing about. But when you're house has been under constant attack for a long time, it's unreasonable to expect the homeowner to keep answering the door with an automatic smile. Even when it's just a brand new postman introducing him or herself.

So if you weren't here for the first few years, my advice is to ignore the tone and look for the actual arguments lurking beneath.

Those who didn't have strong opinions and the personalities to stand by and argue them (often relentlessly!) are long gone now. Whats left are perhaps the scarred battlers with enough "quick twitch" muscles to have survived.

So don't be surprised if we occasionally jump.

It's what we do. ; )

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 2:16:50 am

[Bill Davis] "So if you weren't here for the first few years, my advice is to ignore the tone and look for the actual arguments lurking beneath. "

I've been reading this forum since day one. I'm well aware of the early days of FCPX and the vitriol and silly arguments that were hashed out here. This forum is my guilty pleasure, in a way. It's like politics, but safer. LOL.

I also know how people's tone online can be misconstrued and how to read past it and look at the arguments. I try to do that, but even if I ignore the tone I seem to read into Robin's posts, I still find the arguments trite, overly semantic, condescending and dismissive. And I don't think I'm alone in this. But maybe I am, and if so - I apologize.

[Bill Davis] "So don't be surprised if we occasionally jump. "

Maybe take a deep breath and realize it's just an NLE, and one with many, many flaws? Like all of them. If you really want to introduce people to the wonders and joys of FCPX, you can't be afraid to recognize where it's inadequate and needs improvement. Go hang out on the official Avid forums for a week. You'll see pretty quickly how people can both love and loathe their software in the interest of making it better.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 6:09:46 am

[Michael Hancock] "Maybe take a deep breath and realize it's just an NLE, and one with many, many flaws? Like all of them. If you really want to introduce people to the wonders and joys of FCPX, you can't be afraid to recognize where it's inadequate and needs improvement. Go hang out on the official Avid forums for a week. You'll see pretty quickly how people can both love and loathe their software in the interest of making it better."

Okay,
Let's examine your premise.
You argue that there are "many many flaws" in X.
I argue that after nearly 200 delivered programs with it personally, I haven't experienced a single program construction flaw to the extent I couldn't complete and deliver my jobs with speed and success. So I'd suggest what you are seeing as "flaws" are perhaps really just minor assaults on traditional expectations and minor inconveniences that can safely be ignored in most use cases. Not saying it's optimal for everyone, only that it's unique strengths can often trump it's weaknesses quite handily for those who learn it well.

As to our need to advocate to "make it better" - Apple is already doing that. I say that with confidence as someone who got to see the NDA presentations at NAB. They regularly listen. I've seen them videotaping editor surveys at NAB and other professional venues. They also tend to go well beyond "just listening" with an eye to real innovation - something I think that will become clear very soon.

So for me, we're down to three interesting questions. One, whether the gigs I'm having such success with are significantly different from a "typical" one. Two, whether other editors having trouble with X are farther from the modern norm and don't need or want the tools it offers and THATS why they perhaps find it lacking.

Or whether there is no "typical" gig any more - only unique challenges where the toolset needs to have a particularly broad capability to benefit the largest number of editors who might want to deploy it.

I've contended for a long time that the editors most likely to dismiss X's capabilities are those who bring hardened workflow expectations to X - and keep seeing it in terms of what they have "lost" - as opposed to what they have gained.

But feel free to list its flaws from your perspective. And let's examine them from the view of what "most" editors are likely to require.

BTW, just for discussions sake, on another board earlier today an industry insider in a good position to know - opined about 2.2 million active X seats worldwide, a bit less than 3 times MORE than it's nearest NLE competitor. He also pointed out that the Bureau of Labor Stastics only lists about 25,000 full time professional editors in the US labor pool and noted that the vast majority of those folks are still cutting on AVID systems.

That "might" indicate X is actually doing really well in open global competition despite the nature of the discussion here.

IF that's true, The X approach is actually succeeding handily. So make your case as to what those "flaws" in that approach might be.

If those stats are flawed (and feel free to post better if you can find them) we can discuss what it lacks, compared to what you, me, or the industry in general needs going forward.

It'll be fun.

FWIW

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 7:07:16 am

[Bill Davis] "BTW, just for discussions sake, on another board earlier today an industry insider in a good position to know - opined about 2.2 million active X seats worldwide, a bit less than 3 times MORE than it's nearest NLE competitor. He also pointed out that the Bureau of Labor Stastics only lists about 25,000 full time professional editors in the US labor pool and noted that the vast majority of those folks are still cutting on AVID systems.

That "might" indicate X is actually doing really well in open global competition despite the nature of the discussion here.

IF that's true, The X approach is actually succeeding handily. So make your case as to what those "flaws" in that approach might be.
"


I'd agree with this, I've seen a lot of Cameramen and Directors start editing using FCPX, quite a few clients of mine have started using it as well so I think it has successfully opened up a number of new markets outside of the the traditional "Editor" crowd.


[Bill Davis] "They also tend to go well beyond "just listening" with an eye to real innovation - something I think that will become clear very soon. "

Hope it's VERY soon!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 2:56:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "I argue that after nearly 200 delivered programs with it personally, I haven't experienced a single program construction flaw to the extent I couldn't complete and deliver my jobs with speed and success"

(Authors warning: the following is offered as an observation, not a criticism.)

This statement is key to a difference in personality more than anything else. I too have delivered a lot of programs, in my case with many different NLEs, and there wasn't one that stopped me from completing and delivering my jobs with speed and success, and yet I have in the past, and continue to, vigorously complain about each and every one. In my view they all "could have" done the job a little better, made my life a little easier, offered a better work experience, and as someone once told me in a different context "if you don't ask, you don't get."

In both this forum and the Adobe forum and on their web site I am always pissing and moaning about all those pesky little ways where Ppro doesn't line up perfectly with my workflow and then to come here and watch you in your love fest with FCPX, in your inability to hear the slightest complaint, even from those who use and champion the software, without a quick denunciation, leaves me somewhere between awe and frustration.

Unconditional love is a wonderful thing with children and pets, I'm not sure it's so good elsewhere, but we are who we are and I will say that you, Bill, are one of the reasons I come here, if only to pull at your tail.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 5:17:59 pm

[Bill Davis] "You argue that there are "many many flaws" in X.
I argue that after nearly 200 delivered programs with it personally, I haven't experienced a single program construction flaw to the extent I couldn't complete and deliver my jobs with speed and success. So I'd suggest what you are seeing as "flaws" are perhaps really just minor assaults on traditional expectations and minor inconveniences that can safely be ignored in most use cases."


I will admit, flaws is probably not the right word to use, because it implies a bug in the program. I haven't run into any show stopping bugs in FCPX (or Premiere or Avid, if we're being fair), so it's poor word choice on my part. I'm talking more about weaknesses/limitations in the program that cause a noticeable drop in efficiency for me.

For example, these shortcomings affect me on a regular basis:
- The lack of true background rendering/transcoding/export in FCPX
- The inability to read .mts files natively without rewrapping (and other codecs the program doesn't natively support)
- The inability to flatten multicam edits or apply stabilization to them
- Lack of multiple timecode displays
- Lack of keyboard control when working with connected clips and secondary storylines
- Inability to mix proxy and original/optimized media in an edit
- Poor relinking
- Lack of layout customization
- No CDL or custom LUT support (without a third party program - I want batch, source side custom LUT/CDL application)
- No ability to apply roles in the event, after an edit has started, and update a sequence with the new roles
- Lack of roles based audio effects (to act like a track based effect in other NLEs)
- Sync indicators when detaching audio

That's a short list. As you can imagine, my full list is pretty long. You may consider these 'minor inconveniences that can safely be ignored" - I consider them "flaws" or weaknesses in the program that I'd like to see addressed by Apple. A lack of Feature X doesn't mean I can't get my work done. It just means it's going to take longer, when it doesn't have to.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that my list of feature requests means the program is unusable. That's never been my argument because it's not true. As you said - you've delivered 200+ programs with it. I've also delivered lots of projects with it and haven't missed a deadline, but I've also delivered projects just as quickly and effectively using Premiere, Avid, and Resolve (which was more of an experiment, but it worked). I just see areas where FCPX is deficient, and I want that improved.

Perhaps it's my use of multiple NLEs that makes me more sensitive to this stuff. No matter which program I'm using, I end up wishing I had feature A from NLE X, or feature B from NLE Y. When I'm in FCPX I want Avid's level of trimming, timecode displays, true subclips, and bin/timeline/program custom layouts. When I'm in Avid or Premiere I want the keywords, favorites, skimmer, and smart collections from FCPX (smart collections need to be in every NLE - they are, in my opinion, the most valuable thing Apple has brought to NLE design). When I'm in Avid I want Premiere's superior keyboard control in my bins and timeline (Premiere has by far the most advanced keyboard control of any NLE I've used). Everything is a tradeoff, but that's not going to stop me from expecting each NLE to look at the competition, see where they're deficient, and improve. And I'll continue to badger each company to implement the features I want to improve my editing experience. That's why they have feature request pages. ?

[Bill Davis] "As to our need to advocate to "make it better" - Apple is already doing that. I say that with confidence as someone who got to see the NDA presentations at NAB. They regularly listen. I've seen them videotaping editor surveys at NAB and other professional venues. They also tend to go well beyond "just listening" with an eye to real innovation - something I think that will become clear very soon. "

It can't be soon enough. I've seen Premiere, Resolve, and even Avid update and improve their programs more than Apple has in the last year and half, so my expectations for Apple are incredibly high. I just hope it's not another 3D text style update with lots of flash but very little substance (for the type of work I do).

[Bill Davis] "I've contended for a long time that the editors most likely to dismiss X's capabilities are those who bring hardened workflow expectations to X - and keep seeing it in terms of what they have "lost" - as opposed to what they have gained.
"


How about, I know what I've gained and know what I've lost, and I want what I've lost to be added back in? I don't agree that everything Apple has done that's been an improvement makes up for what they're missing. That's an odd argument to make. If Ford released a car that got 300 miles per gallon but didn't have a seats, should we not ask for seats? Why not have great mileage and seats?

I send Apple feedback constantly. I hope you do too. And if you do, what types of things are you requesting? I'd be interested to know where you think FCPX needs improvement, and I'd be happy to submit feature requests for the same thing. Squeaky wheel and all.

[Bill Davis] "But feel free to list its flaws from your perspective. And let's examine them from the view of what "most" editors are likely to require."

See above for a short list of things. See this thread for more: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/84031

But I don't understand why my list should have anything to do with what "most" editors are likely to require. If most editors require tracks, would you want Apple to add them back in?

My list is for me - I'm the one using the program, so I'll list what I want in the program. You also use the program so you make a list of what you want. If our lists converge, that's great. If they don't, maybe I should look at your list and ask if there's stuff on it that I haven't considered. I would probably find things I would like but I had never thought about - so I'll submit feedback for them. And you would probably find things on my list that you never thought about but would save you lots of time. You could submit feedback. I learn more from people's list of feature requests than hearing about how great an NLE is by rehashing what it can already do. Tell me what it can't do but should - that's the exciting stuff.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31:19 pm

I'd just like to say, that was a terrifically good post.

Thank you.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 4:12:06 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 19, 2016 at 4:17:59 am

Awesome response. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

So my thinking...

- The lack of true background rendering/transcoding/export in FCPX
I work with background rendering turned off 95% of the time. X still displays eminently workable screens and near instantly renders screens of anything I stop on in my content so I always know what the final quality of my work will be - By postponing the rendering until the output stage, X can dedicate all it's processing power to rendering for the master, rather than interrupting for "renders in progress" which tends to annoy me more.

- The inability to read .mts files natively without rewrapping (and other codecs the program doesn't natively support)
I see those as IP issues. X does fine with all the codecs Apple has licenses to directly support. For those they don't - they chose not to pay royalties. It's just business.

- The inability to flatten multicam edits or apply stabilization to them
I stabilize via "open in timeline" as part of prep. I don't want to extend a scene and have to constantly re-render - which I'd have to do if I wanted to make changes to a "flattened" multi-cam edit in my storylines. I tend to fiddle with them always looking for a better cut until right at the end. If they would do that I'd use it. But it's not my workflow now.

- Lack of multiple timecode displays
I only use visible timecode for client string-outs. I don't care what the timecode of anything is - so long as I can find exactly what I need via keywords. X thinking for sure. And I understand editors doing other types of work who live and breath TC - I just don't anymore.

- Lack of keyboard control when working with connected clips and secondary storylines
More would always be nice. But I use them mostly for cutaways - not complex construction. So it's not a big deal. If I find I have too many secondaries, I'll Snapshot and drop them into my primary, knowing that I can always go back and "rescue" my prior storyline construction if need be. It keeps me making "iterations" which I often find useful if I make U-turns in my storyline thinking. Charlie Austin figured out a neat trick for near instant Auto Archiving Snapshots via Smart Collections - and that's my go to modality now.

- Inability to mix proxy and original/optimized media in an edit
You may be working with extreme resolutions - and this might be important because of that - but for me, if the shot footage resolution demands a Proxy workflow - I'm totally content to stay there right up until Mastering. X's proxies ROCK. Horses for courses.

- Poor relinking
Disappears as an issue with proper library management. I still largely rely on Sparse Disk Bundles or dedicated clone drives when I use Referenced Media as my default footage storage mode. With bundles, no matter which clone you launch, X "sees" it as original media and everything re-links. Same with Libraries created and mounted on a single external Volume. Learn VOLUME management and mounting - and it's not a big deal - at least the way I work. For facilities guys, it's probably a bigger deal. But it's just not an issue for me.

- Lack of layout customization
This could be improved. But I also kinda like knowing I have one adaptable arrangement for multiple screen work, and a couple for working laptop single screen - and I'll typically be in one of those modes. I learned X on a laptop. So I'm a single screen, trackpad oriented guy now. Moving pallets and panes around to accommodate different tasks isn't something I miss at the moment. Maybe that will change soon. Who knows?

- No CDL or custom LUT support (without a third party program - I want batch, source side custom LUT/CDL application)
That's the X way of things. Make the program as good as possible at the core, then let 3rd parties add the things smaller constituencies need. I need color correction a LOT for some shoots - and don't touch it for others. Oddly, the cheaper the cameras where my footage comes from, the less I seem to need to correct it. I'm working with some iPhone 7+ footage right now on a small project - and it's positively gold as shot. Looks awesome. The C-300 stuff I get is all over the place. And Raw is Raw. I shot projects for 20 years without much camera shading and things were fine. White balance in the field was a religion. And all light was tungsten or daylight. Simple. Now, without tweeking every scene and shot, it's a mess. That's kinda weird to me. Oh well.

- No ability to apply roles in the event, after an edit has started, and update a sequence with the new roles
Yep. Metadata flow Discipline is a VALUABLE skill to learn in X. I will not argue that at all.

- Lack of roles based audio effects (to act like a track based effect in other NLEs)
Not touching this other than to say editors weened on traditional systems have had what I feel is a quite rationally hard time mentally releasing "tracks" for ever now. I found it easy. Keep your hopes up. ; )

- Sync indicators when detaching audio.
Again, I think about audio differently now. I detach it with great reluctance. I often find ways to not have to. When I DO have to - it's a big red flag for me and I feel I have aliens running around my storylines hell bent on hurting me later. Oh well.


Michael,

Your points were well described, cogent, and I know they'll resonate with a LOT of editors.

All I can say is that everything you're asking for seems to me to fall into a large category of "things I know I want and don't have." That's TOTALLY fair. It's what a LOT of the X debate has been about. Editors with experience with other programs, wanting those very useful things in X. I get that.

BUT...

I've always said the things about X that attract me to is are generally NOT the things that have been part of the canon of NLE language for decades. Those things are nice, but not important. What IS important (to me at least) are the things that have been largely UNIMAGINED to this point. X had a major dusting of that when it was released. I want more of THAT.

As EXCELLENT as your list is, I think it's perhaps, kinda that. Great "wants," but nearly all already well known and hoped for.

I remember saying basically. I want Apple to SURPRISE me with things I haven't dreamed about yet.

Still my hope.

(Well, I do have some ideas about the Voiceover Tool and audio recording workflows in X, because that's something I do a LOT. Maybe someday I'll gently poke my friends in Cupertino about that!)

But overall, I want to just keep having what I have right now. A tool that I sit at most days - and at the end of the day - I've effectively moved my work really well forward.

Loved the post tho. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Lets do more!

: )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 4:41:50 am

[Bill Davis] "I've always said the things about X that attract me to is are generally NOT the things that have been part of the canon of NLE language for decades. Those things are nice, but not important. What IS important (to me at least) are the things that have been largely UNIMAGINED to this point. X had a major dusting of that when it was released. I want more of THAT.

As EXCELLENT as your list is, I think it's perhaps, kinda that. Great "wants," but nearly all already well known and hoped for.

I remember saying basically. I want Apple to SURPRISE me with things I haven't dreamed about yet.
"


And this is where we differ. Apple can surprise me all they want - but while they're working on their surprises, how about they also add in functionality that has been proven, in other NLEs, to be a boost to productivity and would make the program more powerful? I see zero downside to it. The fact that my list can be considered well known and hoped for by lots of editors should be reason enough for Apple to look at their program, compare it to their competition and say "Wow - they have some great features. Can we implement them, and make them even better?" Instead we got 3D text.

Honest question - have they released any surprises that have made a real, immediate, and constant boost to your productivity since the multicam update? Looking at their release history, most of their releases since then have been bug fixes, new codec support, or adding in functionality that was there in FCP7 (or already present in other NLEs). Which is great! But the pace has slowed so much that it's disheartening, and they aren't even keeping parity with their competition any more.

It's been 5 years. What surprises have there been past the initial release and the promised multicam et. al update (which was announced months prior to release)?

[Bill Davis] "(Well, I do have some ideas about the Voiceover Tool and audio recording workflows in X, because that's something I do a LOT. Maybe someday I'll gently poke my friends in Cupertino about that!)"

Do tell. What is FCPX lacking in regards to VO work, and how would you make it better?

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 6:52:47 am

[Bill Davis] "(Well, I do have some ideas about the Voiceover Tool and audio recording workflows in X, because that's something I do a LOT. Maybe someday I'll gently poke my friends in Cupertino about that!)"

Perhaps your "friends" could get you a gig in the Apple PR Department as well :)


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 8:08:33 am

[Bill Davis] "Not saying it's optimal for everyone..."

I think you think it is optimal for everyone, but you always pull up short a hair short of flat out saying so. Any criticism of X you explain away as either user error, user ignorance, irrelevant because the way X does it is better and/or irrelevant because you've happily delivered 200+ projects so far and if you can get buy w/o feature XYZ it must not be that meaningful of a feature to begin with.

W/regards to attitude, there are people that have been through rougher things than arguing about which NLE is best yet they are still very pleasant to interact with. I doubt the 'Great NLE Wars of the Early 21st Century" made anyone unpleasant to be around that wasn't already unpleasant to be around. I don't equate criticism of a software tool with someone attacking my house though, so maybe I'm not taking it seriously enough to become a grizzled, battle hardened vet of the NLE wars.

Possibly unrelated story just popped into my head. During the past 9 or 10 years I've taken part in one of the many MS Rides held around the country in order to help raise money and awareness for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. The bike rides are usually a two day event that covers 150 miles. Well, a few years ago the weather was horrible (freezing rain or snow depending on what altitude you were at) and at one of the rest stops a few of us were commiserating about the craptacular conditions we were cycling in. Another cyclist pulled up and when she heard our chatter she casually said, "The people we are here for would love to be able to ride, even in weather like this." Needless to say, our complaints ceased and the weather suddenly didn't seem so bad anymore.

Sometimes a perspective adjustment leads to an attitude adjustment.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 5:22:07 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 19, 2016 at 5:23:19 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Any criticism of X you explain away as either user error, user ignorance, irrelevant because the way X does it is better and/or irrelevant "

Let's play a word swap game...

"Any PRAISE of X you explain away as either user thinking error, user ignorance, irrelevant because the way X does things is actually no better..."

Sound familiar?

Perhaps because that's essentially a primary argument proffered in this forum in this thread?

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 5:38:18 pm

[Bill Davis] ""Any PRAISE of X you explain away as either user thinking error, user ignorance, irrelevant because the way X does things is actually no better..."

Sound familiar?

Perhaps because that's essentially a primary argument proffered in this forum in this thread?
"


Care to offer a quote or two to back that thinking up?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 7:50:41 pm

This thread has been pretty amazing even by the elevated standards set by this forum, but, as far as I can tell, all anyone has been arguing who isn't an extreme FCP X enthusiast, is that there are several ways to skin the editing cat, and FCP X is an interesting one and it works well in many editing situations, but there are other options which work as well, or even (dare we say it?) better for other editing situations.

After five years, one might have thought that the need for FCP X defensiveness would have abated somewhat, but apparently that is not the case.

Additionally, one might have thought that we could start talking neutrally about the endlessly fascinating craft of editing and the many, many different ways in which this manifests itself, and it wouldn't always immediately come back round to "my toy is better than your toy".

Maybe it's because I'm getting horribly old but I can't seem to summon the same enthusiasm for toy competition that I could in my younger days.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 8:05:29 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] " one might have thought that we could start talking neutrally about the endlessly fascinating craft of editing and the many, many different ways in which this manifests itself,"

I thought the way different editors thought about, and work with, "black holes" was sort of nifty. But like mining for gold, you have to dig thru a lot of !*#%! to get the nuggets.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 8:50:58 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sound familiar?"

Not really, because I think the vast majority of regulars here can participate in a productive comparative analysis of various NLEs. People might have their favorites, but they can still speak critically about them. These days homerism is the exception, not the norm in here IMO.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 6:39:24 am

[Michael Hancock] "I also know how people's tone online can be misconstrued and how to read past it and look at the arguments. I try to do that, but even if I ignore the tone I seem to read into Robin's posts, I still find the arguments trite, overly semantic, condescending and dismissive. And I don't think I'm alone in this. But maybe I am, and if so - I apologize.
"


Don't apologise, you are not alone in this, the tone of some people's comments run contrary to the spirit of the COW.


Return to posts index

Matthew Ross
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 5:38:48 pm

[Michael Hancock] "This forum is my guilty pleasure, in a way. "

Mine too. FCP X isn't even an option for me because we're PC-based, but I like to read this forum because:
  1. I like to keep up on what's going on in the world of editing.
  2. It's damn entertaining sometimes!




Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 7:10:56 pm

[Matthew Ross] "[Michael Hancock] "This forum is my guilty pleasure, in a way. "

Mine too. FCP X isn't even an option for me because we're PC-based, but I like to read this forum because:
I like to keep up on what's going on in the world of editing. It's damn entertaining sometimes!"


Same here, I come for the smart commentary on workflows, tools and state of the art stuff... but the food fights are kind of fun too, when they're not personal and mean spirited. ?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 6:47:17 am

[Bill Davis] "So if you weren't here for the first few years, my advice is to ignore the tone and look for the actual arguments lurking beneath.
"


No! the "tone" is what makes the COW such a great place to visit.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 12:26:04 am

[Robin S. Kurz] " In X, no shortcuts no switching no fiddling with prefs yadda yadda yadda… it's there. Done."

So what about things like the hidden and undocumented commands to make the tilde key "sticky"?

[Robin S. Kurz] " Others just interpret it to mean "usual" or "most common" or "best known" or… but then there'd be nothing ominous to take offense to I guess."

Funny, coming from the person who repeatedly calls every NLE other than FCPX the old way of doing things.

[Robin S. Kurz] "To be able to transition between two clips in the primary they have to be in the primary. To do it in Premiere they have to be in the same V-track... "

Not true for either FCPX nor Premiere Pro. Put a clip on V2 or a connecting clip, add a dissolve to the front of the clip, and you've created a transition. Primary to connecting, or V1 to V2 respectively.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Which I guess goes for nearly every long time Avid editor I know, since almost none of them seem to even know it exists when I ask, seeing that it was just plunked down in a random update a while back, with little to no explanation (or so they say). They ignore it because they are fine just going on as usual, or just plain don't get it with the whole red/yellow(?) mode or whatever that is. Nor have I gotten it, but then I don't edit on Avid so it doesn't matter. Either way it's certainly far from sit-down-and-work functionality which this is about."

Maybe you should stick to talking about software that you actually know. A lot of Avid editors hate the Smart Tool, but a lot of them love it. The point was that it's quite contextual and people who get a handle on it like it. Every Avid editor knows it's there, whether or not they use it. It was added a few years ago and not randomly. How can they ignore it when you say they don't know it exists? And red/yellow modes (overwrite/insert) have been universal icons in post since before NLEs. Remember FCP "legacy"?

[Robin S. Kurz] "Tell me, Oliver, when and how often do you need the position tool and for what? "

I think that's been pretty thoroughly covered by others. But in addition, another use is when you want to temporarily move some clips or scenes down to the end of your timeline, if you are using the timeline as a "scratch pad". Rather than do it "magnetically" and then inserting a gap for separation, the position tool comes in handy. So it's an integral part of the workflow and something I and many other editors toggle into whenever needed in each and every session.

[Robin S. Kurz] "So now you're trying to sell us that ONE SIMPLE ALT-COMMAND CLICK on a clip to move the connection to where I need it before the move is some sort of laborious, time intensive task??"

I thought you believed that using modifier keys and commands you had to learn were somehow not a part of the FCPX workflow?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Alan Okey
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 6:53:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "A nice presentation, but fundamentally skewed to pitch his preference for FCPX."

Agreed. It also ignores the very real constraints that are imposed by editing for television, for example, in which the importance of timecode is central to workflow.

Horses for courses.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:03:11 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:04:14 pm

[Alan Okey] "It also ignores the very real constraints that are imposed by editing for television, for example, in which the importance of timecode is central to workflow."

Feel free to elaborate. What does that mean exactly? How and where are you NOT working with timecode in FCP X where it is "central to workflow"? And how do you suppose these guys (as one of the more prominent of many many examples) are working around this supposed shortcoming? http://apple.co/1hrM6zb

I'm very curious, seeing that you must obviously know your way around broadcast and FCP X so well.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 1:06:42 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Alan Okey] "It also ignores the very real constraints that are imposed by editing for television, for example, in which the importance of timecode is central to workflow."

Feel free to elaborate. What does that mean exactly? How and where are you NOT working with timecode in FCP X where it is "central to workflow"? And how do you suppose these guys (as one of the more prominent of many many examples) are working around this supposed shortcoming? http://apple.co/1hrM6zb

I'm very curious, seeing that you must obviously know your way around broadcast and FCP X so well.

- RK
"


Sometimes I have a really hard time believing your a teacher. If you approach your job, the same way yo approach this forum...SMH.. poor kids.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 1:52:08 am

[Neil Goodman] "Sometimes I have a really hard time believing your a teacher. If you approach your job, the same way yo approach this forum...SMH.. poor kids."

Well, that's kinda rude.

Maybe, it's just what Robin does HERE.

In a place where we've been arguing in EXACTLY this way for more than 5 years.

Perhaps the way he approaches his job is no different than someone who stands in a classroom for hours doing a great job - then heads for the Pizza joint and sings Opera for a few hours each night.

Different personalities being displayed in different circumstances. What a concept.

Personally, I see this as the one place I simply don't have the right to be annoyed by others behavior, because participation is completely optional. Being challenged, is the CENTRAL mode here. If you don't like having your pre-conceptions challenged - to be pushed at - it's a bad place to hang.

Just another potential way to see things.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 1:58:07 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:00:03 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Sometimes I have a really hard time believing your a teacher. If you approach your job, the same way yo approach this forum...SMH.. poor kids."

Ah yes. The good old logical fallacy of tu quoque! The appeal to hypocrisy… always a favorite! Brilliantly executed, too.

Oh, and actually, if I teach them anything, then it's at minimum the difference between "your" and "you're"… and english isn't even their (or my) first language. Weird, I know.

Sooooo, to summarize… you therefore have no answer of any actual substance to offer up either? Just the usual diversionary polemic and sadly ad hominem* attacks for lack of any real arguments? Okay. Then maybe just leave those up to Herb, just to keep things simple? ? Thanks.

Yeah. I'm most definitely the jerk here. No question about it! ?

_____
* that's apparently considered a bad word here (??!) and is rejected, therefore the (initial) hyphens. ? What the…


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:18:37 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Sooooo, to summarize… you therefore have no answer of any actual substance to offer up either? Just the usual diversionary polemic and sadly ad hominem* attacks for lack of any real arguments?"

Now THAT made me laugh!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 4:02:44 pm

Who's surprised? I hear you have an amazingly astute sense of humor and aren't afraid to prove it.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 4:55:12 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Who's surprised? I hear you have an amazingly astute sense of humor and aren't afraid to prove it."

To be honest I only join in these arguments to keep my position at number 40 in the COW Hall of Fame. Bill overtook me a while ago and I'm trying to catch back up

https://forums.creativecow.net/hof.php


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 4:16:11 pm

I enjoyed his video, but I usually send people the swapping two shots video that you posted second when they ask me "Why X?"

When I first started working with X I didn't like it. I just jumped right in without any studying of it and got a little frustrated. I hacked my way through my first project and took it to the client. They wanted changes so I went back to make them and that's when I really started loving X.

It wasn't the assembling of the edit at first, it was the making changes fast that got me onboard.

There is really no argument people can make against that strength of X, accept to maybe say I don't make changes to my timeline that far in.

Well, I make a lot of changes for different reasons and even if I only did it a few times it's worth it for me.

The thing that I have always found ironic about X early on and now, is that it's often not seen as an editing program for "complicated work". I fond that the more "complicated" your timeline is the more useful X is. When he goes to show the example of swapping he actually says "let's go to a more complicated timeline" (or something like that) Moving stuff around in a simple timeline is easy in most editing software.

What X is doing is much like your iPhone when you start typing and it starts guessing at the next word you are going to type. It's often correct with it's guess so it saves you time if you select the word instead of typing the entire word yourself. Or when you mistype a word, instead of backspace, backspace, backspace retype you can select the correct word in a flash.

X is using that technology and it's connected clips and magnetic timeline helps it do that.

For example, it's guessing you don't want to overwrite a section that you built so it moves it out of the way for you. It is guessing that you would have moved it yourself so it will save you the time. Or when you pick up a section and you are dragging it down the timeline and the blue line pops up on the next edit, guessing that you might want to drop it there. You can release the mouse before you actually get there if its guessing right. That saves time instead of going all the way to the edit.

In a track based program it's almost impossible for the program to guess your next move. Do you want that piece of audio on track 2 or track 14? It has no way of knowing, so you must select that yourself.

People ask me how I can edit faster in X, it's much like I can text faster now because I'm not typing as much to say the same thing.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 16, 2016 at 6:05:58 pm

Well explained, Tony.

Sometimes it's hard to break down and express this stuff because most of us just "do" our editing without thinking about it too much.

Time and again on my personal shift from Legacy style editing to X style editing - I've just realized that things that used to take me significant time to accomplish are suddenly NOT taking me anywhere near as much time.

Responding to client requests for changes are a HUGE area where I find this to be particularly true.

Concentrating on initially BUILDING a story will sometimes miss the impact. But when it comes time to CHANGE a story you'll see it very clearly.

The thing is - once you learn that it can have a major influence on how you edit. When you see improvements that you can make to your work - the lower the "effort penalty" that's applied to making those changes, the more likely you are to make them. You're freer to simply take a chance to try something different.

Its a hidden benefit to having learned that the cost of "exploration" has been significantly decreased by the nature of the tool.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Robert Withers
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 1:53:16 am

My background: I worked in film with Steenbecks and synchronizers. I guess that's called NLE. Only once or twice in video linear. Which seemed very clumsy. Then FCP7 which had a timeline that resembled a synchronizer, then moved to Premiere which also has a fixed timeline. Still struggling to comprehend the FCPX concept, which seems to write on a page without a fixed timeline. This demo shows how to do certain kinds of edits that I rarely do (switch order of shots) and how they are "easier" in FCPX. Maybe so. But I don't need them to be "easier", just want to understand what's happening on the timeline. I think the FCPX timeline is always in flux, lengthening and shortening, according to content. Pieces on the timeline are linked to each other, not to the timeline. One day I'll try this out, one day start with a new piece and see what happens. Not now.
Honestly, I could follow this piece to half-way through, then my eyes glazed over..

Robert Withers

Independent/personal/avant-garde cinema, New York City


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 2:56:02 am

[Bill Davis] " the lower the "effort penalty" that's applied to making those changes, the more likely you are to make them. You're freer to simply take a chance to try something different. "

Well said yourself Bill,

So much of it for me goes back to cutting my doc. I didn't have a script and I was learning about the topic as I went along. You meet and interview more and more people and suddenly they are telling you something that's a game changer.

You know of nuclear waste being dumped at an official site. It's official, so a lot of people know, but then a worker tells you about another site. One that isn't official, one that nobody but a handful of workers know about. One dangerously closer to the public. He points to a spot on the map, "no", I say "it's farther north right?"

"I'm not talking about that one, I'm talking about this one"

It's time to start moving stuff around.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 2:13:29 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Quite possibly the best, comprehensive and astute comparison and highlighting of old and new that I have seen to date."

I will start this by stating that I believe, based on demo's like this since I obviously have not tried it, that FCPX is the absolute best NLE at moving clips around the timeline in such instances. But now let's talk about the above demo ...

We are shown an AV clip where the audio both precedes and then trails the video - both an J & L cut. Then Jesus, the demo artist, wants to move it to another point in the timeline and shows, first, how incompetent he is with Ppro and then how easy it is to do this with FCPX.

Now, for the serious editor, there are a couple of unasked questions here -- what is the nature of the audio that is being moved and why is it longer than the video. Is it sync dialogue, which cuts in and out at very specifics points or is it background sound, like a street scene, where the extra audio is for a transition. I would want to know this before moving anything -- for instance if it were dialogue, then after moving the clip into it's final position I would have to clean up and move the other audio that got pushed aside "magnetically" when it found it's new home, because otherwise you've created an audio mess. Bravo and all that for being able to move things around but the move isn't over until it's useful - if the audio is now overlapping other sync audio this move is incomplete, no matter how sweet it is to watch it being done. If the sound is background or music, then the simple Ppro way to deal with it is clean up the overhangs, ripple move the clip, and then restore your audio extensions to fit your new position in the show. But this would look too easy so Jesus does everything ass backwards.

In either case the main difference between X and Ppro is that with X you move and then clean up, and with PPro you clean up then move. I will again stipulate that even with a decent Ppro editor X is probably a little bit easier and faster to accomplish this with, but not in any way comparable to the hash that Jesus made of moving stuff in his demo, something that Robin may have missed because, as he so amply proved (https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/91146) he's not too sharp with Ppro either.

It should also be noted that ripple moves that involved only video, only audio, or video/audio with equal durations are not an issue in Ppro, which of course is why Jesus chose the example he did.

So is X better at doing ripple moves in complex timelines - apparently so. Is it so much better that it should be your sole or even main criteria for choosing an NLE - not in my case.

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 3:27:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] " I would have to clean up and move the other audio that got pushed aside "magnetically" when it found it's new home,"

Not necessarily Herb. It's a good point that you are making but I would only add that "pushed aside" is not really an accurate description of what's happening. "Pushed aside" makes me think something is being moved left or right. They move vertically either up or down to make room which is an important distinction. So your prior clips still start and end in the same point as before the move. (clips that are located near the new move)

So if my overlap sound was leading in on the original scene it will still be leading in on my newly selected scene (or vice versa). I find that I often don't have to do much cleanup on these moves if any.

At least that's been my experience. I will also admit I was surprised at how little efforts it was myself.

I would move entire scenes just to see if it made the story pop more if a certain person opened the scene or another.
It was actually fun and like Bill suggested I found myself trying things more often because it was so effortless.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 3:51:27 pm

[Tony West] "t I would only add that "pushed aside" is not really an accurate description of what's happening. "Pushed aside" makes me think something is being moved left or right. They move vertically either up or down to make room which is an important distinction."

I apologize for not being clear, what I meant is that one of the audio files, whether original or new, will now be pushed to another lane, up or down so that they can all exist in the same place in time without overwriting each other. When this happens you get audio overlap - if the new audio is dialogue and the original audio is dialogue - well then you've succeeded in moving the audio but failed to create a usable track without further work. Showing a clip flying around a timeline is misleading if it doesn't show the problems still to be solved by the move. To properly use Ppro you anticipate the problems beforehand, alter the tracks accordingly, and then make the move efficiently. From what I've seen of the FCPX demos you can move the clip very quickly, but then in many cases you still have to clean up the results, and that part is always left out of these"demos."

[Tony West] "I would move entire scenes just to see if it made the story pop more if a certain person opened the scene or another.
It was actually fun and like Bill suggested I found myself trying things more often because it was so effortless."


I have no doubt that this is your experience.

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 4:11:27 pm

I would never really go dialog to dialog leading in.

For me it's more like, I hear the truck coming before I see it. I hear the truck sound on the back end of a guy's interview.
Then I move the truck up because I want it to come in at the back end of a gals interview. It's still leading in, it's just leading in behind a girl now instead of a guy. Nothing to clean up here.


The point I'm making is it's super easy and fast, that's why I'm dong it.

I didn't really do as much swapping before using X because it could be kind of tedious. It isn't with this program and that has changed the way I edit.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 6:48:02 pm

[Tony West] "I would never really go dialog to dialog leading in."

In interviews and drama, as a basic rule, I never want the audio and video to cut at the same moment, because when they do they draw the audiences attention to any discrepancy in room tone and general sound. So even if it's only 8 frames I will offset any audio cuts from picture cuts within the same scene. Dramatically as well once I start on the interviewer asking a question I want to go to the CU of the interviewee to see how he's reacting before he starts to answer, and often there is too long a pause so I cheat it and offset the audio.

[Tony West] "For me it's more like, I hear the truck coming before I see it. I hear the truck sound on the back end of a guy's interview.
Then I move the truck up because I want it to come in at the back end of a gals interview. It's still leading in, it's just leading in behind a girl now instead of a guy. Nothing to clean up here."


Yes, that's easier, and there's much less to clean up in this situation in Ppro - just trim back the audio till it matches the video, make your ripple move, and then extend the audio to fit. Is X quicker here? Yes, absolutely, but not as much as that demo tried to show - there's no need to fix any gaps or anything else.

While I understand why you like X, for me that pick-up in speed is not worth the lack of a visually coherent track layout. There's no free lunch - your getting something by giving up something, and if what your giving up has no value to you, then your choice is obvious.

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: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 6:56:31 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:13:29 pm

[Herb Sevush] "for me that pick-up in speed is not worth the lack of a visually coherent track layout."

Right.

Okay. So… just to be clear… therefore, if X had "a visually coherent track layout", that would change everything? I mean then you would, by your own admission, have both, right? Speed and your "coherent track layout" (whatever that even means and you postulate as a key feature for supposedly superior editing), no?

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:30:33 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "therefore, if X had "a visually coherent track layout", that would change everything?"

That plus the ability to easily edit with audio disconnected to video - as an outsider those are the two biggest reasons why I have never even tried X.

[Robin S. Kurz] " I mean then you would, by your own admission, have both, right? Speed and your "coherent track layout" (whatever that even means and you postulate as a key feature for supposedly superior editing), no?"

I didn't state anything was superior, I talked about my workflow. For me, visually coherent tracks is an essential, I leave phrases like "superior editing" up to salesmen. As to what that means, it means that while looking at my timeline at all times, without having to hit any special buttons, I can know the nature of every clip - is it sync, is it sync being used as efx, is it music, is it canned efx. I want that as constant feedback as I playback my timeline and I can have that with any tracked system, I can't get that, presently, with FCPX.

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: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:47:51 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:49:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "That plus the ability to easily edit with audio disconnected to video"

Huh? Since when can you not do that in X?? What are you talking about? (I'll spare myself asking why anyone would even want to do that or how it could be super essential…)

But either way, with that, plus…

[Herb Sevush] "it means that while looking at my timeline at all times, without having to hit any special buttons, I can know the nature of every clip - is it sync, is it sync being used as efx, is it music, is it canned efx. […] I can't get that, presently, with FCPX."

… you clearly show you truly know nothing about X, not so much as the mere basics, and therefore can't logically know what you're even arguing for and/or against, but insist on doing it anyway. It's amazingly cringeworthy.

Oh well. I'll leave it up to others to figure out...


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:57:00 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Herb Sevush] "it means that while looking at my timeline at all times, without having to hit any special buttons, I can know the nature of every clip - is it sync, is it sync being used as efx, is it music, is it canned efx. […] I can't get that, presently, with FCPX."

… you clearly show you truly know nothing about X, not so much as the mere basics, and therefore can't logically know what you're even arguing for and/or against, but insist on doing it anyway. It's amazingly cringeworthy.
"


Herb is actually totally correct on this, sure you can get most of that information (apart from sync!) in FCPX but you can't get it in a SINGLE view without a button press


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 7:59:01 pm

If you know about ROLES and know how to use AND display them… yeah, you actually can.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:06:46 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "If you know about ROLES and know how to use AND display them… yeah, you actually can.
"


On the timeline? Am I missing something? Of course you can in the timeline index (with a button press) but don't you have to click on a clip or put the playhead over it to highlight each clip in the index?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:11:43 pm

[Steve Connor] "Am I missing something?"

Possibly the display option?



- RK

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:16:55 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Steve Connor] "Am I missing something?"

Possibly the display option?

"


Cool -score one to Robin! I don't need the visual references that Herb needs so I've never looked for it!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:28:52 pm

[Steve Connor] "I don't need the visual references that Herb needs"

Nor do I.

Ever.

Or anyone (using X) I know.
(I guess including you now... lol)

If anything, then it's relevant upon OUTPUT. Period. Since why should I (in the context of X) give a flying rats back-end where anything is in the timeline (i.e. what role it's assigned to) before then? Completely and utterly irrelevant... unless of course you're working track-based. In which case… yeah. I get it. I feel for you. ?

But hey… it's there anyway, right? ?

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:45:31 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 17, 2016 at 8:51:08 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "If anything, then it's relevant upon OUTPUT. Period."

BTW, yet another one of those "Why the **** do I have to constantly think about this — i.e. take it into consideration — with my every move while I'm editing??"-things in track-based NLEs that don't come into play with X.

Cue the word SPEED and, oh yeah… PATCHING. You know, that synonym for "connected clips"? ?

And no, not the "arbitrary" but the "objective" and reproducible type of speed. No matter the project. No matter the person.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 1:25:28 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "BTW, yet another one of those "Why the **** do I have to constantly think about this — i.e. take it into consideration — with my every move while I'm editing??"-things in track-based NLEs that don't come into play with X. "

Most experienced editors DON'T have this thought process. It's part of the reason there might be resistance, by many editors who prefer Avid, FCP7, Premiere Pro, etc, in switching to FCPX. Muscle memory takes care of the mechanics, so they are free to cut as creatively as they like with their preferred tool. And they have the happy clients and directors to show for it.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 17, 2016 at 9:06:33 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Huh? Since when can you not do that in X?? What are you talking about? (I'll spare myself asking why anyone would even want to do that or how it could be super essential…)"

Are there timecode sync references when working with disconnected audio in X, and are there one-step controls to snap audio and video back into sync with each other? I have been told the answer to these two questions is no.

As to the why I would want to do that, I've answered that many times, and in this thread I spelled it out again in my post to Tony.

I don't ask you to use my methods, but they've been working for me for a long long time, producers tend to hire me, awards keep coming my way, audiences keep watching my shows, and I tend to come in on time and under budget -- so the question I could ask is not, "why do I work this way?" but why others don't. I could ask it, but I won't because at a certain point your realize that there are a near infinite number of good ways to do almost anything, and who am I to judge. If your an editor working for me, then you do it my way, but as for the rest ...

Your correct that I am woefully ignorant of the workings of FCPX and because of that I try, and too often fail, to avoid talking about it. This whole thread started with a "demo" that demonstrated that Jesus has no idea how to work in Ppro. On that I have some knowledge. You might have even noticed that I started and ended my post by granting X it's superior abilities in the area of ripple editing - if you can't understand why that isn't enough for me to switch NLE's, well what else can I say ...

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 8:43:02 pm

I think the discussion of swapping shots and tracks may have gotten us away from his main point in the video.

His real focus seems to be on Apple's decision to change the default mode on many of the task that have been the opposite for years.

Instead of leaving a hole in the timeline by cutting a section by default, leave it closed by default. (ripple)

Instead of your audio being separate by default, embed the audio with the video by default.

Trim both the audio and the video at the same time by default.

Make what you would choose most often during an edit the default instead of the second option.

I agree with his main point because more times than not it's defaulting to what I want anyway.

I think he has hit on something in this theme.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 9:12:48 pm

[Tony West] "Instead of leaving a hole in the timeline by cutting a section by default, leave it closed by default. (ripple)

Instead of your audio being separate by default, embed the audio with the video by default.

Trim both the audio and the video at the same time by default.

I agree with his main point because more times than not it's defaulting to what I want anyway.
"


a) I'd almost always sooner leave a hole rather than ripple.

b) I almost always have to un-embed audio in FCP X in order to be able to edit efficiently.

c) I almost always need to trim audio and video separately.

I guess one editor's preferred defaults can easily be the diametrical opposite of another's.

Universal claims about what is optimum are always going to run up against this fact of life.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 9:38:35 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "a) I'd almost always sooner leave a hole rather than ripple."

And I wouldn't.

If I'm cutting a spot that needs to be a certain length and I tend to replace the shot by dropping the replacement shot on top of it. No hole.

If time is not a factor, like cutting a doc, I just cut the shot out and leave it closed. Why would I want a black hole there?
Nothing is gong there.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 1:29:14 am

[Tony West] " Why would I want a black hole there?
Nothing is gong there."


What's going on there is a blank hole in your timeline, an obvious and visually powerful reminder that something used to be there. It was probably there for a reason, but now it's gone. Sometimes that's information worth knowing.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 7:30:01 am

[Tony West] "If time is not a factor, like cutting a doc, I just cut the shot out and leave it closed. Why would I want a black hole there?
Nothing is gong there."


On the flip side, why would you want two clips/shots side-by-side that shouldn't be side by side?

My rough cuts are full of black holes because I know putting A next to B is wrong, but I just haven't figured out/built what should go between them. Occasionally a producer will push for viewing a rough cut before it's ready and get frustrated with all the black, but for me the flow isn't interrupted because in my mind I don't see the black, I see what will eventually live there.

Sometimes I'll make cards as places holders "Music up here", "Broll of woods", "Bob talking about Ohio", etc., so that others get a better idea of what's in my head. It can be tedious to keep making cards though and I'd rather spend that time cutting.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 8:03:33 am

[Andrew Kimery] "My rough cuts are full of black holes because I know putting A next to B is wrong, but I just haven't figured out/built what should go between them."

Yes, this was the explanation I was going to give too.

Because most of the editing process (for me) is usually about constructing around a "roughly sketched out architecture", dictated perhaps by music, perhaps by natural dialogue rhythms, perhaps by sound design, or a combination of these types of elements, I rarely use ripple delete because this would be a disruption of the "sketched out architecture". As is the case with you, leaving black holes is a key part of how this all works for me.

Obviously I will use sometimes ripple delete and "ripple move" at a very early stage, such as when adjusting a string-out, etc., but once the edit is up and running I will almost never uses these techniques.

It follows that when I do use either technique, my requirements for how it functions are very basic indeed, in the sense that video and audio will be coterminous and not yet multi-layered, which of course makes it simple to do in any NLE.

(As a side note when I ripple move, I will usually Cut and Insert Paste (or whatever is the equivalent on each platform), which is a handier technique then dragging things around the timeline when they are not in the immediate vicinity of where you want them to go.)

I think what we are seeing in this thread (as so often in this type of discussion) is that different editors not only favour different strategies, but more importantly they are doing different types of editing. In my work, editing isn't about stringing one shot after another and then shuffling the order (ripple move) or losing a shot here or there (ripple edit). But for some editors here that's clearly the bulk of the task because that's the type of show they are putting together.

Hence, much as I enjoy the fun of doing ripple moves in FCP X, I just don't do them very often at all - and on some jobs never.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:28:16 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "On the flip side, why would you want two clips/shots side-by-side that shouldn't be side by side?"

So hit ⇧⌫? Simply insert another shot? Hit ⌥W or even ⌥⌘W? Or CTRL-T? Just plain replace the clip? Use… oh nothe Position tool ? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?? Because this is starting to sound like X only has two functions. Edit and ripple.

This is a completely contrived non-discussion imho. If you need gaps, you can have gaps in a plethora of ways, as with any other NLE. Yes, even Apple knows that gaps and the likes have purpose, which is why the list of options is so long. You want or need to work that way, you can. Done. Move along… absolutely nothing to see here.

[Andrew Kimery] "I think you think it is optimal for everyone, but you always pull up short a hair short of flat out saying so. Any criticism of X you explain away as either user error, user ignorance, irrelevant because the way X does it is better and/or irrelevant because you've happily delivered 200+ projects so far and if you can get buy w/o feature XYZ it must not be that meaningful of a feature to begin with."

Which can be said of a LOT of people here, only in the exact opposite and every other direction. E.g. citing various functionality that plain doesn't concern the vast majority of users, claiming the fact that X "still" doesn't have whatever it is makes it "flawed", worse than others, less usable, unprofessional et al? You know… because solipsism! So I have no idea what you hope to achieve by just singling out Bill as if he were some sort of sole offender or even anywhere at the top of the list. Aside from my finding it to be completely inappropriate and rather hubristic to suggest you know Bill's "secret thoughts" with some tacky appeal to emotion, just to try and discredit him and his take on matters. Insinuating he's being disingenuous?? Now that's ironic.

[Andrew Kimery] "a grizzled, battle hardened vet of the NLE wars."

Now you've certainly singled out the wrong person judging by that description. ?

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:37:57 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Which can be said of a LOT of people here, only in the exact opposite and every other direction. E.g. citing various functionality that plain doesn't concern the vast majority of users, claiming the fact that X "still" doesn't have whatever it is makes it "flawed", worse than others, less usable, unprofessional et al? You know… because solipsism!"

Nobody on this forum has the slightest idea what the "vast majority of users" wants, likes or dislikes. We all know what we, and our small circle of working associates, like and dislike. As far as Apple goes, I thought their whole design mission was to ignore what the user wants and instead give them what Apple thinks they need. That being true, then even Apple doesn't know what the "vast majority" wants. How about you ask for what you want and I ask for what I want and we'll let the market place sort it out?

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 8:46:37 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "So hit ⇧⌫? Simply insert another shot? Hit ⌥W or even ⌥⌘W? Or CTRL-T? Just plain replace the clip? Use… oh no… the Position tool ? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?? Because this is starting to sound like X only has two functions. Edit and ripple."

Simon, Tony and I weren't talking about how to insert black into the timeline. We were talking about using black as tool during the editing process. Tony doesn't, Simon and I do and I was giving an example of why I use it.


[Robin S. Kurz] ". E.g. citing various functionality that plain doesn't concern the vast majority of users, claiming the fact that X "still" doesn't have whatever it is makes it "flawed", worse than others, less usable, unprofessional et al? "

What do features that concern, or don't concern, the vast majority of users have to do with the specific needs of a specific user on a specific gig? Individuals creating unique workflows to meet their objective and subjective needs is a valid reason to dig into the details, IMO. The overlap in functionality between Avid, 7, X, Vegas, PPro, Lightworks, Resolve, etc., is immense so it's the finer things that make one NLE more suitable for A but another NLE more suitable for B. Something that's minor for one person on one project might be major for another person on another project.

Ex. The file path character limit and image dimension limitations of Avid's Pan and Zoom tool made me want to claw my eyes out on a project I did a couple of years ago that used a ton of still images. If I had it to do over again I would have used 7 or PPro (or X if the other editor and I knew X). It's certainly an issue that wouldn't concern the vast number of NLE users (probably wouldn't even concern the vast number of Avid users) but it cost me a lot of unnecessary time and effort on this one particular gig. It will definitely impact my choice of NLEs if I come across a gig with a similar workflow in the future.

Another example is the share feature in X. Bill really likes it because he uploads a lot to Vimeo and/or YouTube. It adds a lot of value to Bill's workflow. I maybe upload things once a week to Vimeo so having to do it 'manually' isn't a big deal to me (PPro has a similar share feature but I haven't even bothered to set it up). The usefulness of the feature is in the eye of the beholder.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 22, 2016 at 7:46:14 pm

Sorry Andrew, I have been out of town : )

I have used that method myself from time to time and even put in the X place holders, but I was talking about being mostly done and the client walks in and says, "That person doesn't work here anymore. Lose 'em"

No need for a place holder at this point. They like everything about the video but that one shot.

I just want to cut them out and ripple it shut the most efficient way.

Is Shift Delete vs just Delete that big a deal. No.

All they did is reverse it from Legacy.

I don't think the guy in the video was saying he couldn't get his work done the other way. He just thought this way was more efficient.

I think most people are going to just cut something out, on a typical edit than use placeholders.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 22, 2016 at 8:08:21 pm

[Tony West] "Sorry Andrew, I have been out of town : )"

And you don't check the COW on your phone before you go to bed every night? For Shame. ?



[Tony West] "No need for a place holder at this point. They like everything about the video but that one shot."

And that makes since it's something getting removed and not replaced.

With regards to keystrokes, I've rolled my own for so long that besides some obvious things (like J,K,L) I'm not too sure what's default for the NLE and what's default in my head.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 22, 2016 at 10:28:22 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "[Tony West] "Sorry Andrew, I have been out of town : )"

And you don't check the COW on your phone before you go to bed every night? For Shame. ?
"


hahaha I know, what am I doing : )



[Andrew Kimery] "With regards to keystrokes, I've rolled my own"

The funny thing is I have also. I like to roll most things into a single Key stroke. If somebody sat down to my keyboard they would say whaaaaa???


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:10:03 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:22:14 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "a) I'd almost always sooner leave a hole rather than ripple."

That of course being easily possible in X as well, if one so desires, even if not by default. Basically just inverted steps from FCP 7.


[Simon Ubsdell] "b) I almost always have to un-embed audio in FCP X in order to be able to edit efficiently."

I'd be very curious to know how the "un-embedding" of audio (I'm assuming that means "detaching"), works out to a higher level of efficiency when editing in X? In fact I'd say you're, if anything, working far less efficient, since you're creating potential pitfalls (loss of sync) all across the timeline, which you wouldn't have otherwise. That's like saying "The first thing I always do in PPro/FCP 7 is unlink all audio, and leave it that way until the end", which of course I don't know why anyone would ever consider doing that. Or am I missing something? Because the fact of the matter is, that after detaching audio in X, it does not trim with the video anymore nor the other way around. So you effectively have to edit every clip with audio twice, no matter what. With attached audio you can do either or on the fly and still never run the risk of losing sync. Like, ever.

So, again: how is that more efficient for you? I'm not saying it isn't or can't be, I'm just not seeing it, but am always willing to learn.


[Simon Ubsdell] "c) I almost always need to trim audio and video separately."

… as just about 100% of the editors I know, and I, do too, yes. This seems to imply that you think you can't in X by default? Of course there is no need to DETACH a single bit of audio to be able to do so, which I'm assuming you're inferring in the company of the other two points? Otherwise I don't know why it's an additional "requirement" in this context.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 10:37:53 pm

[Tony West] "Instead of leaving a hole in the timeline by cutting a section by default, leave it closed by default. (ripple)"

There are many previous NLEs that didn't default to overwrite, and some that didn't default to anything. It's not an either or choice, you can have it both ways. Even with Ppro, which does lean towards overwrite in some ways, most ripple edits can be accomplished without modifier keys.

[Tony West] "Instead of your audio being separate by default, embed the audio with the video by default."

NLEs that I'm aware of have audio sunc to video by default.

[Tony West] "Trim both the audio and the video at the same time by default."

Again, this was true of FCP7 and is true today for every NLE that I'm aware of, which is why I have to go to the trouble of unsyncing them when I start editing.

[Tony West] "Make what you would choose most often during an edit the default instead of the second option."

This is the aim of all software, but it's pretty hard to accomplish given the number of different work flows and editing style out there. The best you can hope for is to find something that works for you -- which apparently you have.

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 11:27:29 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Tony West] "Instead of your audio being separate by default, embed the audio with the video by default."

NLEs that I'm aware of have audio sunc to video by default.
"


Not really what I was meaning. The audio and the video in X is one clip that you move all at once. Not lassoing the audio along with the video to move it.

[Herb Sevush] "[Tony West] "Trim both the audio and the video at the same time by default."

Again, this was true of FCP7 and is true today for every NLE that I'm aware of, which is why I have to go to the trouble of unsyncing them when I start editing."


I have not used Prp so you would know better than me but at 5 in the video, he selects LINK to trim both audio and video. Is LINK the default mode in Prp? It didn't look like it was in the video. In X you would not select LINK to trim both.


[Herb Sevush] "This is the aim of all software, but it's pretty hard to accomplish given the number of different work flows and editing style out there. The best you can hope for is to find something that works for you -- which apparently you have."

Sorry, I wasn't saying "me" I was saying that Apple was making that guess. That "they" were betting more people would want it to default that way. I'm not really saying that they were right or wrong, I'm saying I believe that's what "they" were doing.

Of course if they sell enough copies to make them happy then they would feel like they guessed right.

I'm guessing : )


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 1:18:36 am

[Tony West] "Not really what I was meaning. The audio and the video in X is one clip that you move all at once. Not lassoing the audio along with the video to move it."

Tony - the audio and video in every NLE is one clip that moves as one, unless and until you un-sync them. You only need to lasso things like music and audio efx, sync stays sunc unless you take action to un-sync them.

[Tony West] "I have not used Prp so you would know better than me but at 5 in the video, he selects LINK to trim both audio and video"

There is no need to link anything that is in sync. And this audio/video behavior is true for every NLE that I have ever seen - none of them default to separating the audio from the video. The audio/video clip moves together; if you grab the video in-point and drag it forward 10 frames, then the audio will go forward 10 frames, even if the video and audio in the timeline are of different lengths. Move the clip to a new place in the timeline and both audio and video move together.

Now I know X takes this to another level, but I won't try to describe the difference because, as a non user, I'm not worthy.

But the crucial thing to understand is that everything you saw as far as Ppro is concerned is bogus; he chose the hardest most convoluted, most ass backward way to do everything, as well as cherry picking the scenario where Ppro is worst in comparison to X. I'm not implying that Ppro is better than X in terms of moving stuff around the timeline, I'm saying he intentionally misled the viewer into thinking Ppro, and by extension all other "tracked" NLEs, was worse than it actually is.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 6:14:58 pm

[Tony West] "I was saying that Apple was making that guess. That "they" were betting more people would want it to default that way. I'm not really saying that they were right or wrong, I'm saying I believe that's what "they" were doing.

Of course if they sell enough copies to make them happy then they would feel like they guessed right."


I think you're touching on a key point here.

The FCP X editing model grew out of, and is the same as, the iMovie editing model.

The iMovie editing model is what it is because it is aimed at "editors" doing a specific type of "editing". This involves (after sifting material in the Event) butting shots up against each other, shortening some and lengthening others, shuffling the order, maybe adding a music track and possibly some cutaways. The iMovie/FCP X magnetic timeline with its default ripple mode and connected clips is the perfect solution to this type of editing, which is essentially shot assembly with a few refinements.

Apple clearly made the right call here in terms of maximising the appeal of iMovie/FCP X.

However, not every professional editor is not spending the majority of their working day doing this kind of shot-shuffling "assembly editing", which is possibly why to some the "default ripple" concept doesn't feel the most natural.

But of course it is not inherently worse or better - why anyone would want to argue that either way is something I can't get my head around.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 6:28:46 pm

"
The iMovie editing model is what it is because it is aimed at "editors" doing a specific type of "editing". This involves (after sifting material in the Event) butting shots up against each other, shortening some and lengthening others, shuffling the order, maybe adding a music track and possibly some cutaways. The iMovie/FCP X magnetic timeline with its default ripple mode and connected clips is the perfect solution to this type of editing, which is essentially shot assembly with a few refinements. "

I think this captures much of the FCPX philosophy and may also explain why some film directors like it for fast assembly. Also, the data base approach with keywords and browser definitely is a plus for early organization. This fits what I do, I have been learning AVID Protools and that is a mind bending process after using X for 5 years, although in shuffle mode it works a little like the magnetic time line.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 6:28:53 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "which is possibly why to some the "default ripple" concept doesn't feel the most natural.
But of course it is not inherently worse or better - why anyone would want to argue that either way is something I can't get my head around."


Not only is it neither better nor worse, you can have an NLE that doesn't default either way, where both modes are evenly weighted - see Discreet *edit.

As to the why - this thread began with a demo whose premise was that ripple editing is somehow the essence of non-linear editing. Everything else follows from that patently false claim.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 8:42:26 pm

I know this question has been asked before, but how often does anyone actually do ripple moves within a day's editing?

It's a nice demo-worthy feature, but it's possibly not at the core of what most editors are doing minute by minute and hour by hour.

If you really are doing ripple moves all the time, then maybe you need to be doing more thinking about what you're doing and less random moving of stuff around?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 18, 2016 at 9:42:45 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "then maybe you need to be doing more thinking about what you're doing and less random moving of stuff around?
"


Maybe I want to experiment on how things flow with different options.

Now if I'm working for you Simon and you have the clock on me, maybe I have to follow your instructions.

Since I'm not, I guess I'm free to experiment if I want to.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:26:28 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:27:18 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "If you really are doing ripple moves all the time, then maybe you need to be doing more thinking about what you're doing and less random moving of stuff around?"

Brilliant. Best one yet. ?

Yeah. I also couldn't be more bummed that Apple had the gall to removed those visually powerful reminder-gaps, so I can reminisce over every bygone edit throughout the day… *sigh*… that just made SO much more sense and made for amazing movies.

[/s] ?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:31:22 pm

I literally haven't a clue what you think you meant by what you just wrote, but if you feel happy having written it, then that's all good.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:37:02 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:37:54 pm

Gee, bummers. Must have been the little typo. Ah well. I expected no less, so no worries! ?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:53:56 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yeah. I also couldn't be more bummed that Apple had the gall to removed those visually powerful reminder-gaps, so I can reminisce over every bygone edit throughout the day… *sigh*… that just made SO much more sense and made for amazing movies."

Why on earth, do you NOT realise that Editors work in many DIFFERENT ways?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 1:03:10 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 19, 2016 at 1:29:54 pm

Dude. Chill. It was what's called a joke.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:42:08 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "If you really are doing ripple moves all the time, then maybe you need to be doing more thinking about what you're doing and less random moving of stuff around?"

Hmmm. I don't know what kind of editing you do. But the kind of editing I do involves continually cutting to get the length down as low as possible while retaining the message. This involves a lot of cutting words, cutting pauses, shortening gaps, heck even speeding up interviews when they are off camera. And, yes, more rarely rearranging order. But, all of these things involve ripple edits. Ripple edits are basically my bread and butter.

What I don't do is a lot of trim tweaking. To this I would rephrase your original posit, "If you're trimming a lot maybe you need to think more about setting your in point properly when you put the clip in." ? Of course, I'm half joking here.

But let me ask you. Is it possible the difficulty of easily rearranging clips in other NLE's actually discourages experimentation to get the best possible edit? While I don't do it a lot, when I do it really makes an enormous difference.

Sometimes I think there is a disconnect between those editing news/documentary/web videos versus those editing scripted videos. Honestly I think they are in completely different worlds with completely different needs.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:49:57 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Sometimes I think there is a disconnect between those editing news/documentary/web videos versus those editing scripted videos. Honestly I think they are in completely different worlds with completely different needs."

Exactly. Maybe not completely different needs, but a lot.

So I came in late on this one as I was editing in X and using ripple all the time. What are we arguing again?

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 12:51:14 pm

[Brett Sherman] " Is it possible the difficulty of easily rearranging clips in other NLE's actually discourages experimentation to get the best possible edit? While I don't do it a lot, when I do it really makes an enormous difference.
"


Only if you're not a very good Editor! rearranging clips in other NLE's, despite the musings of some, ISN'T difficult if you know how to use that NLE properly. FCPX definitely makes it easier to move things around, that's one of the things I like about it, but the fact it is slightly easier hasn't made my editing any different


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 1:00:36 pm
Last Edited By Herb Sevush on Oct 19, 2016 at 1:01:29 pm

[Steve Connor] " rearranging clips in other NLE's, despite the musings of some, ISN'T difficult if you know how to use that NLE properly."

+1

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


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:52:17 pm

[Steve Connor] "Only if you're not a very good Editor! rearranging clips in other NLE's, despite the musings of some, ISN'T difficult if you know how to use that NLE properly."

Point taken. But, my point is more along the lines path of least resistance affecting judgement. Not a conscious decision. Admittedly it's just a musing and a little out there. But when has that stopped anyone on this board before. :)

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 2:59:56 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Point taken. But, my point is more along the lines path of least resistance affecting judgement. "

I agree with you, I think this can happen if you are not comfortable with the NLE you are using


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: FCP X Explained…
on Oct 19, 2016 at 5:38:06 pm

Slightly off topic. As much as I enjoy this thread, I am unable to quote a post. I have read all the instructions --Select text and then hit Q or q. It has worked about twice in 100 tries. Safari or Firefox no different. OS X El Capitan. How are you guys making it work? Is there some magic Java code?


Return to posts index

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