FORUMS: list search recent posts

Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Brett Sherman
Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 2:15:06 pm

OK. First let me say I like what I'm seeing with the update. But I wish they had handled placing effects on roles differently. This is the problem. All professional mixing applications allow you to put an effect on a buss. FCP X's method is similar, but different in a very important way.

You cannot make changes at the clip level while hearing how the effect you put on at the role level affects it. It's sort of like flying blind. It's much like the AE pre-comp issue, which don't get me started on that!

Noise reduction affects EQ affects compression affects limiting. So typically you'd apply corrective EQ and noise reduction at the clip level and the compression and shaping EQ at the buss level. In noise reduction for example, you have to know how the buss level compression is going to impact the noise level. With FCP X's setup there simply is no way to do this in an efficient manner. You have to go back and forth between inside the compound and outside the compound to see what effect your noise reduction is having.

I wish they had allowed Role Effects at the Project level and not required a Compound Clip. This would have solved the problem. Unfortunately at this point I don't think there is any easy fix for this problem since it's built in to the architecture.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 2:39:40 pm

Completely agree. Has anyone tested sending a Project, where all audio is within Compound Clips, to either Logic Pro X or Pro Tools (via X2Pro)?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 2:55:46 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Has anyone tested sending a Project, where all audio is within Compound Clips, to either Logic Pro X or Pro Tools (via X2Pro)?"

Oooh I'm curious too know ?

I won't be able to test till this evening.

Anyone?


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 3:29:45 pm

The AAF created by X2Pro comes in to Logic without the compound clips ready to mix.


Return to posts index

Paul Figgiani
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 6:39:58 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I wish they had allowed Role Effects at the Project level and not required a Compound Clip. This would have solved the problem. Unfortunately at this point I don't think there is any easy fix for this problem since it's built in to the architecture."

Brett,

If I understand you correctly, you're assuming that you cannot add audio processing EFX at the Clip and/or Project level unless multiple audio sub-roles are wrapped into a Compound Clip and exposed?

What about using the Timeline Index to display audio sub-roles at the Project level, exposing each individual stem? In this case you can easily apply audio EFX to each discrete sub-role.

If you look at the attached image, there is a reference Video, a Surround Stem Role (with 6 sub-roles), a Split-Stero Role (with 2 sub-roles), and a 5.1 Interleaved file (with 6 sub-roles) and Focus activated. The file is designated as "6 Mono" in the Inspector, with each Mono channel assigned the proper sub-role. With each Mono sub-role exposed via Timeline Index, you can easily add discrete audio EFX.

Of course this doesn't solve applying clip level EFX combined with Bussing multiple sub-roles (routing various clips to a common Bus).

-paul.



Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 7:33:01 pm

Did I understand the Ripple Training tutorial correctly, if you chose to mix with a Compound Clip in SUBROLES View, and you put effects on subroles seperately, and you go back to Roles View, you lose the stuff you put on the Roles view?
I kind of understand the logic behind it, but it's good for people to know, and to add it to the discussion about the mixing.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index


Paul Figgiani
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 8:23:11 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "Did I understand the Ripple Training tutorial correctly, if you chose to mix with a Compound Clip in SUBROLES View, and you put effects on subroles seperately, and you go back to Roles View, you lose the stuff you put on the Roles view?
I kind of understand the logic behind it, but it's good for people to know, and to add it to the discussion about the mixing."


Not the case. You can apply effects to discrete sub-roles while retaining any effects applied to the parent Role.

-paul.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 8:43:55 pm

[Paul Figgiani] "Not the case. You can apply effects to discrete sub-roles while retaining any effects applied to the parent Role."

No no, I know that. But in the audio configuration view in the inspector you can choose between Roles Mixing and Subroles Mixing. If you choose Subrole Mixing, put effects on separate Subroles, and then switch back to Roles Mixing you loose Those effects. The same is NOT true for effects on Roles.
I saw it in Ripple Trainings 10.3 In Depth tutorial. The application even warns you for it when you switch back.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 9:06:06 pm

I watched the tutorial and as I understand if you go from Subroles back to Roles you lose the FX applied to the Subroles just as you describe. Basically it's either Parent and Roles or Parent and Subroles, not Parent, Roles, Subroles.

Paul you may need to clarify if you're finding otherwise. Perhaps post a screencast showing it.



Return to posts index


Paul Figgiani
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 9:38:04 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I watched the tutorial and as I understand if you go from Subroles back to Roles you lose the FX applied to the Subroles just as you describe. Basically it's either Parent and Roles or Parent and Subroles, not Parent, Roles, Subroles.

Paul you may need to clarify if you're finding otherwise. Perhaps post a screencast showing it."


Thanks, Craig. I'll check it out. I applied a verb to the Role in clip's Roles option in the Inspector. I then switched to Sub-roles and added a gain plug to all Sub-roles. The verb on the top level Role was retained. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you guys are referring to ...

-paul.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 10:02:48 pm

[Paul Figgiani] "I applied a verb to the Role in clip's Roles option in the Inspector. I then switched to Sub-roles and added a gain plug to all Sub-roles. The verb on the top level Role was retained. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you guys are referring to ..."

Yes. That's correct.
If you do the same to a subrole, and not on a Role, then switch back to Roles Mixing in the Audio Configuration, your effects that you put on the Subroles seperately (and not on the 'parent' Role) will be lost. Just try it. (It's easier for us because in the tutorial you see it in action).

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 10:36:27 pm

Think metadata flow.

Metadata naturally flows from Roles into Subroles.

But not so much from Subroles upstream into the Roles.

Overall, it's why when you change the audio level of a clip - it doesn't effect the audio level of the parent clip in the browser. The browser is basically "upstream" from the clip.

FWIW.

Assign roles and subroles EARLY - if you want those choices to flow into your subsequent work downstream.

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


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Nov 1, 2016 at 2:49:00 pm
Last Edited By Craig Seeman on Nov 1, 2016 at 2:51:17 pm

Looking at last nights FCP Virtual User Group 8 at about 45:00 to about 50:00 Sam Mestman explains the use of roles. As we've noted if you go from Sub Roles back to Roles in the Inspector you lose the FX on the Sub Roles. He seems to say though, that if you instead make another Compound Clip, you then can add FX to Roles, not losing the Sub Roles information. Of course I could be misinterpreting this. His argument is that with this much granularity it may obviate the need to go into a DAW in some cases.



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 11:46:05 pm

Can you adjust levels in that view, the one on the left? Seems like they have space for some more icons to control dB, pan, eq, FX.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Here comes the wet blanket on Role Mixing
on Oct 31, 2016 at 8:36:10 pm

Your points may be ENTIRELY valid. (But I can't weigh in on them intelligently because I haven't even been able to install 10.3 myself!) I've been in Cupertino the last 3 days. (basically surrounded by hundreds of top-tier X editors from all over the world trying to wrap our heads around what this stuff really means!

Having direct access to members of the X development team as well as the product managers - I will say that some things became abundantly clear.

10.3 represents new capabilities that took a LOT of deep, deep re-thinking by the design team.

One tiny example, late the night after we first saw 10.3 I was siting thinking about the concept of a "mixer." I still default to a physical thing where each electrical pathway has to be preset at the time of manufacturer to do one job well. The fader does a thing in the chain. likewise, busses, aux's etc, etc, etc.

Now those are ALL virtual ideas. I used to purchase a "mixer" with 16 channels - and thats where it stayed throughout it's life.

Think about that now.

A "channel" is now just a virtual construct. There's no functional penalty for having each audio CLIP itself have its' own "virtual mixer" subset of it's OWN virtual sorta mixer accessed via Roles and SubRoles? And what should that "mixer on a clip" be? What can it START with - and what can it become with further development.

And is that even the best way to think about what's happening - or will keeping the thinking restrained to a "mixer" be the best paradigm going forward?

And maybe more importantly, if we imagine and implement a concept like that - how do we make a solid prototype of the idea, knowing that once the concept is created - you're a huge way towards being able to refine and express the new concept in lots of ways.

It's first try to understand what would be useful - and second, how to implement those ideas inside a system that's already highly complex and evolving. Roles and SubRoles are not just features bolted on top of what X used to be...they have big implications about how things like importing various files from various cameras with varying numbers of tracks and codecs and formats - needs to flow into storylines that need to not just access the sound data, but also pass it through the system. Remember X isn't a system with just ONE type of "clip" on your storylines that are all identical - we have all sorts of useful REFERENCE CONTAINERS like Sync Clips, Compound Clips, Multicam Clips, etc. Every signal from every variable source has to flow through these virtual constructs and just WORK.

I came away from the Summitt with the STRONG belief that the X team is continuing to build out systems and ideas that will profoundly effect the FUTURE of X audio and video editing. And they perhaps aren't so much focused to "finish" it's capabilities - but rather to make it easier and easier to continue the evolution process of it - as everything continues to move forward.

Roles today are different with important new capabilities. The flow of metadata has changed inside the program. The various container types have to handle all that seamlessly.

The big trumpet message I'm going to pass along from this point on is that if you're an X editor - LEARN ABOUT ROLES AND SET ROLES as EARLY as you can, whenever you can.

(X still works just fine if you NEVER set a single role or use a single keyword, of course, but an editor that doesn't understand this stuff is missing a whole lot of capabilities baked into the software.)

Just like trimming in the event browser, when you can do your metadata work early - it gets powerfully leveraged as you continue to work and usually gives you huge new time saving efficiencies downstream.

That's the absolute CORE of efficient X editing.

And likely always will be.

My thinking this morning. I'm going to be relatively quiet for a while because I've got a LOT of re-writing and production to do on XinTwo now that the logjam is broken.

I'll try to stop back by occasionally to decompress and have fun, but it's not going to be easy with all this to juggle.

Have fun folks.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

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