FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X - steady as she goes.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 13, 2017 at 6:09:01 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 13, 2017 at 6:10:39 pm

I really have nothing important to say here.

Since I've posted a couple of OT threads contributing nothing about how X actually functions...

I'll spend today (Sunday) doing 20 pages of narration work for delivery to a Tucson client - all inside an X storyline - using the voiceover tool - the magnetic timeline and auditions for a super easy edit - and using X's Logic modules for the signal processing. I fully expect it to be a smooth and trouble free day.

I just figured it would be useful to have at least one post in the FCP X Debates Forum that was ACTUALLY ABOUT somebody using FCP X.

That's all. 😁

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 13, 2017 at 6:13:58 pm

I assume many of us here use FCPX every day and are very happy with it as well. Doesn't make very interesting reading though.

Although I'm sure you'll get at least one post pointing out you could do the same thing in Premiere Pro too :)


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 13, 2017 at 6:27:52 pm

I'm spending my Sunday mowing the lawn, reading a book on my hammock as I watch the Hudson River flow by, and then getting ready for Yanks-BoSox, because I spent the previous week not working in FCPX and therefore don't have to work on Sunday. (Just kidding Bill -- sort of.)

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 - steady as she goes.
on Aug 13, 2017 at 8:34:00 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 13, 2017 at 8:36:51 pm

Sounds like a pleasant weekend, Herb.

Takes me about an hour to record, post, and deliver a 15-page AV Script formatted VO like this one.

So Weekend work is seriously no bother anymore.

Sure is different from all my "go to the studio full of engineers" days.

Now it's a slim, small 12" MacBook (cuz no fan noise!) for running X - an iPad for the script AND a live session FaceTime with the client (if requested.) - and a USB interface for the mic. The "VO recording stidio footprint" literally fits into a Manila envelope. It's crazy.

(VO has come a LONG way, Baby!)

I now try to dedicate my VO earnings to fund "nice surprises" for my wife of 30 plus years - so spending weekend time on this sort of work always seems like one of the best investments I make.

And since this is part one of a 5 part series - I'm extra grateful to FCP X for making it easier to produce than it was for all the years I had to wrangle multiple digital signal processing tools.

Life's too short.

Hope next week is awesome for you as well.

Take care.

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 13, 2017 at 6:52:12 pm

You could do the same thing in Premiere Pro (there you go...didn't want to disappoint)

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 4:21:25 pm

Two things that need to be addressed: keyframes and image sequences. There are no hold keyframes in Final Cut and as far as I can remember it never has. I have been with Final Cut since version 3 though I skipped one upgrade cycle. Image sequences can be imported into Final Cut but you have to change the duration to 1 frame. I think Motion can handle image sequences and make them a single clip upon import. Still no mixer and once Fairlight takes off in Resolve I may just use that for the audio workflow.

To be sure Final Cut is not perfect but neither is any editing software. Even though it needs improvement, as the things mentioned earlier, I really don't see myself jumping ship. To be honest, those things are not that major. At least I don't have to pay rent. πŸ˜‰


Return to posts index


Robert Withers
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 14, 2017 at 1:24:10 am

What are auditions and X's Logic modules for the signal processing? I'm curious about sound work in X.
Now working in Premiere.
Thanks,
Robert

Robert Withers

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 14, 2017 at 4:10:15 pm

[Robert Withers] "What are auditions and X's Logic modules for the signal processing?"

Auditions let you store multiple takes in the same timeline clip. This is especially powerful with the magnetic timeline, because if you switch takes within a clip and new timing is different, the timeline automatically reflows to accommodate it. As you might imagine, this is a really strong feature for cutting VO in FCPX. You can quickly mix and test (audition!) different takes to get the read just right.

FCPX has a set of filters from Apple's Logic Pro X audio application available right inside FCPX. (This is pretty comparable to Premiere's built-in audio effects.)

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 14, 2017 at 8:28:52 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 14, 2017 at 8:49:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX has a set of filters from Apple's Logic Pro X audio application available right inside FCPX. (This is pretty comparable to Premiere's built-in audio effects.)"

Basically what Walter said.

In particular, the entire titling and graphics suite in X is just a connected subset of Apples Motion code - while the audio engine is based on Logic X - so X's audio filters and effects are the same ones musicians working in Logic would use.

The thing that's really unique about sound in X is the Roles sound asset targeting system.

Basically it lets you to assign metadata tags to audio information in your storylines that allow you to group like assets into classes - no matter where they reside on storyline levels, or as part of clip bundles - and when it's time to export your work, this tagging system makes multiple audio stems and alt deliveries something you can setup - save - and re- use with what's called a "share destination."

Basically it's a pretty new type of database driven audio export automation process for an NLE and still being developed.

The future of the system may hold things like capabilities to do basic database based mixing and effects at a clip level (speculatively) rather than needing to route audio signals through a virtual mixer - as it does with track based systems that still pretty much hold to the traditions borrowed from analog workflows.

The last big X update was pretty much focused on Roles expansion - nobody knows what any anticipated fall updates will include.

Hope that helps.

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 14, 2017 at 9:05:55 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Aug 15, 2017 at 1:23:30 am

[Bill Davis] "rather than needing to route audio signals through a virtual mixer - as it does with track based systems that still pretty much hold to the traditions borrowed from analog workflows.
"


Well... I'm not sure that this isn't what's happening. Although we are probably saying the same thing. By assigning audio roles, you are effectively creating a submaster routing path through a virtual mixer. It's just that you aren't working with a skeuomorphic mixer/fader user interface. So if you have various voices assigned as roles and want to add a "phone futz" EQ FX to one of the voices, the Roles mixer lets you accomplish that, without actually doing any track patching.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 3:19:50 am

[Oliver Peters] "Although we are probably saying the same thing. "

I think we are - at least a bit.

The way I conceptialize it - when they did the "clean slate" tear down from Legacy to X - they had the chance to change the entire audio plumbing. They also had lots and lots of high quality programming modules available with Core Audio calls and Apples Logic code to deploy so they didn't have to custom create everything.

They also maybe had permission to jettison skeumorpgic "shorthand" ideas like just tossing something That looks like a virtual 8 bus Mackie on screen - even tho that would have been super easy and super popular with the traditionalists.

I prefer to imagine they decided to figure out what audio MIGHT look like in a magnetic and non-track construct - get the virtual wiring and patching imagined first (the signal flow) and THEN figure out how to provide the user with ways to control things.

It might someday be a mixe-rish gizmo. But it also might not. It might be a host of mini mixers you can put where needed. Or a metadata defined patching and level controlling "something" I can't yet conceive - kinda like I didn't see Roles coming before it arrived.

All I know is all along the X development path, even if they've added things I was familiar with (I.e Multicam) - they managed to improve the basic idea and implement it in a way to provide both outstanding performance and utility.

My patience has been well rewarded to this point. So I have LOTS of incentive to look forward to whatever comes next.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 14, 2017 at 9:53:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "The future of the system may hold things like capabilities to do basic database based mixing and effects at a clip level (speculatively) rather than needing to route audio signals through a virtual mixer - as it does with track based systems that still pretty much hold to the traditions borrowed from analog workflows. "

This is what has long fascinated me about FCP X enthusiasts and Apple enthusiasts generally. They would like us to see imaginary future developments as current product benefits.

We have seen this time and time again.

In this particular area of audio mixing, we have yet to see Apple come up with anything approaching these grand plans but that has done nothing to stem the flow of romantic speculation.

Don't get me wrong. I admire the enthusiasm. It's the logic I can't quite follow. In every other field, users wait for a product benefit to actually materialise before getting very, very exicted about it.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 1:01:14 am

[Bill Davis] "The future of the system may hold things like capabilities to do basic database based mixing and effects at a clip level (speculatively) rather than needing to route audio signals through a virtual mixer - as it does with track based systems that still pretty much hold to the traditions borrowed from analog workflows. "

Subbing to buses then master buses for bus based signal processing is something I have been doing with digital mixing for 25 years. It isn't an analog workflow but instead an incredibly powerful and necessary tool to deliver the required stems and various mix formats demanded in the world of cinema, broadcast and even the web. Have you seen Netflix's deliverables?

By assuming X will one day deliver better clip based processing shows you have little idea of how audio signal processing works. Clip based processing has some use but without bus based and multi mix configurations with signal processing to control loudness, compatibility of fold downs etc X is a still a toy in that area. An X mixer with bus based (call it roles if you must) processing and multi routing is minimum requirement. When they do that and how they do that remains to be seen and more importantly heard. Have a look at Fairlight in Resolve when it is fully integrated and the penny might drop.

And what do you mean by 'database based' mixing?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 1:29:33 am

[Michael Gissing] "An X mixer with bus based (call it roles if you must) processing and multi routing is minimum requirement."

In fairness to Bill, X pretty much does that now. Not as complex as a DAW can get, but Roles in its present state effectively becomes a set of submaster buses. This also enables discrete spilt-track outputs in a relatively simple manner.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 1:45:39 am

[Oliver Peters] "In fairness to Bill, X pretty much does that now."

Can you apply say an EQ, dynamics and other plugins to a role and then have that role dip up and down as it creates a multi channel output? I'm talking about processing on the sub and final mix here not clip based processing. I thought that control and signal path was what X users keep asking for.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 9:47:15 am

[Michael Gissing] "Can you apply say an EQ, dynamics and other plugins to a role"

Here is how role-based mixing currently works:

https://www.provideocoalition.com/advanced-mixing-roles-final-cut-pro-10-3/

https://images.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Audio_Roles.pdf

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 12:09:46 am

[Oliver Peters] "Here is how role-based mixing currently works:"

Thanks Oliver. I see the work around by making compounds of compound clips to apply an effect to what effectively is a stem. Seems very ugly and is certainly not fast, flexible and powerful as proper busing. It seems the mentality is that everything has to be a clip or a clip within a clip within a clip. It is a bit more advanced than Legend's nesting but it doesn't do what I was asking.

If I did a flow chart of my usual 5.1 broadcast mixer you would see that the compounding approach has immediate limitations on creating stems with effects but no dips plus fold down stereo stems with different FX and no dips plus a 5.1 and stereo mix which can all be routed to tracks as inputs to be able to record them. And once recorded to be able to punch in and out on the fly when any changes are made.

That's what will be on offer when Fairlight is fully integrated into Resolve. Most editors will not even realise the power and elegance of this style of signal routing and track & bus based effects plus automation. X is probably good enough, like Pr & Avid for editing and certain levels of finishing.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 12:39:14 am

[Michael Gissing] "I see the work around by making compounds of compound clips to apply an effect to what effectively is a stem. Seems very ugly and is certainly not fast, flexible and powerful as proper busing"

I don't disagree at all. Just that it's more versatile than would appear at first glance. Unfortunately there are points where effects can override other effects. Plus you can't make changes inside a compound and hear the final processed output. So it is busing, but really only one level deep. Hence the request for Apple to do more with this toolset.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 12:08:46 pm

I would also add, that from a DAW perspective, it's also missing the hardware roundtripping available in ProTools, Logic, etc. There you can send a signal out to a physical processing device and reintroduce that effected signal back into the mix, for a real time combination of software and hardware processing. I'm sure the FCPX users don't care, but for pro audio mix engineers, it's an important feature.

Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 1:12:00 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I would also add, that from a DAW perspective, it's also missing the hardware roundtripping available in ProTools, Logic, etc. "

The hardware issue is significant from another point of view too. Using my AVID Artist Mix control surface, I can mix with ProTools, Logic and Premiere, but not with FCP X.

http://www.avid.com/products/artist-mix

The benefits of hardware faders are no to be underestimated. Just as with a control surface for grading, you can work so much quicker and produce better results much more easily.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 1:33:53 pm

[Simon Ubsdell]"The benefits of hardware faders are no to be underestimated. Just as with a control surface for grading, you can work so much quicker and produce better results much more easily."

Sometimes it is hard to beat the old school. Mixing with real faders as opposed to mouse moves is such a no brainer. Ancient paradigms can often be vastly better than cheap new thinking. I've always been a fan of dedicated ergonomic hardware. Anyone who values efficiency, accuracy and real speed knows that no ASCII keyboard with mouse or pen/tablet interface can beat it.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 10:25:34 am

No, TOTALLY!

Hey! While we're at it let's get REAL BUTTONS back on our damn cel phones too!

This new fangled "sheat of glass" as a control surface SUCKS.

Tacitily RETRO FTW!

No reason to change perfection!

😏

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 12:09:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "This new fangled "sheet of glass" as a control surface SUCKS."

So true:

https://www.fastcodesign.com/3063238/why-wont-apple-fix-the-iphones-one-hug...

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 12:30:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "Hey! While we're at it let's get REAL BUTTONS back on our damn cel phones too!"

That's what I've got! ☺

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 3:23:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "Hey! While we're at it let's get REAL BUTTONS back on our damn cel phones too!"

Sometimes buttons are better for some people, even if they're not better for you. That's why options are always nice.

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 - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 5:30:30 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Sometimes buttons are better for some people, even if they're not better for you. That's why options are always nice."

I know - it's HORRIBLE how they outlawed buttons and put in those laws about how no cel phone company can offer buttons anymore.

We should be free to move on and use new technology or stick with older stuff as we like.

And it's lovely that nobody around here gets "individually" pushed at as foolish or painted as intolerant for advocating either option.

😢

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 6:34:31 pm

Just like phones with buttons, every edit system that came with tactile controls are now gone...

Quantel EditBox / Henry
Panasonic PostBox
Sony Xpri
Immix - Accom VideoCube / TurboCube / Stratocaster / Affinity


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 6:59:49 pm

You can still get the Lightworks console.

https://www.lwks.com/

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 7:18:56 pm

And Quantel is still around and with a console. Plus, you have BMD with 3 options for Resolve surfaces.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 4:33:12 am

Ah... I thought Quantel was reduced to just color. I see Rio is an editor as well.
I noted that eQ-iQ was gone, and I assumed that they were out of the editing game.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 2:45:15 pm

[Scott Thomas] "Ah... I thought Quantel was reduced to just color. I see Rio is an editor as well.
I noted that eQ-iQ was gone, and I assumed that they were out of the editing game."


The full editing set is there. Plus SAM/Quantel still sells variations of this UI with their full news editing systems. Just not under that name.

Also there's still SGO Mistika, which is a full editor, but has found a niche in color correction. And Scratch - more of an a grading system than an editor, though.

So there are a number of companies out there with full editing consoles - just not the cheap ones.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 25, 2017 at 8:38:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "So there are a number of companies out there with full editing consoles - just not the cheap ones."

Tangent has been working with Autodesk on the high-end Tsunami concept panel, initially for Lustre. Here's Andy Knox from Tangent, interviewed by Jonny Elwyn:

"The Tsunami Concept is a versatile platform, allowing us to produce both generic and bespoke panels… Internally the panels are truly modular which allows us to rapidly alter the layout or even introduce completely different panels to meet with the specific demands of our software partners."

https://jonnyelwyn.co.uk/film-video-editing-tools-for-editors/inside-tangen...

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 9:56:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "This new fangled "sheat of glass" as a control surface SUCKS."

Touch surfaces are actually pretty poor replacements for hardware like game controllers, mixing consoles, keyboards, etc., (which is why software keyboards rely so heavily on autocorrect, predictive text, etc., to be usable). We've traded away quality for convenience and lower cost, which is the way things tend to go. We base our purchases on our budget and our needs. We buy what's good enough for our situation and very few of us are in the position (and/or the mindset) to buy the absolute best of something w/o regard for price or practical application.

For example, off the rack QWERTY keyboards are not the best to use for text entry, video games, NLEs, etc., yet off the rack QWERTY keyboards are the most widely used HIDs for text entry, video games and NLEs because they are convenient and they are 'free' (in that they came with the computer). It's not about old vs new. It's about what's good enough. I mean, CDs got clobbered by MP3, not SACD or DVD-A. Even with my rudimentary, basement drummer skills if someone said, 'Hey instead playing the drum part on your kit, would you mind doing it with this QWERTY keyboard instead?' Unless there are extenuating circumstances (like my drum kit is engulfed in flames) the answer is 'no'.

One of my main take aways from reading the "Innovator's Dilemma" years ago is that existing tech is rarely eclipsed by better tech, it's eroded away from the bottom by newer, inferior tech that's less expensive but 'good enough' for some segment of the population. As the newer tech improves more people adopt it because the performance gap narrows while the price gap typically remains broad.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:05:21 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " It's not about old vs new. It's about what's good enough. I mean, CDs got clobbered by MP3, not SACD or DVD-A"

The history of media technology is to constantly be making things faster, cheaper, easier and almost as good.

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 - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:24:24 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "One of my main take aways from reading the "Innovator's Dilemma" years ago is that existing tech is rarely eclipsed by better tech, it's eroded away from the bottom by newer, inferior tech that's less expensive but 'good enough' for some segment of the population. As the newer tech improves more people adopt it because the performance gap narrows while the price gap typically remains broad."

All I'll note is that I've had to visit my local Apple Store for Peripherals twice in the past month.

In both cases, while talking with store associates - I've watched them whip out their iPads and type in either search queries or notes on issues we've discussed.

In both cases, the 20 or 30 something associates have been able to enter textural information at a clip equal to or better to me as a 40 year pretty darn good touch typist.

My point is that if you only improve on the tech you're most accustomed to using - it may be self-fulfilling that THAT will be what you see as a superior process.

PERHAPS - it's only when you accept that the new touchscreen has the CAPABILITY of being close to or equal to that tactile input device - do you can begin to achieve equivalent mastery?

Just food for thought.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:29:03 pm

[Bill Davis]"PERHAPS - it's only when you accept that the new touchscreen has the CAPABILITY of being close to or equal to that tactile input device - do you can begin to achieve equivalent mastery?"

Perhaps it is when you try both with an open mind that you will find which is better for you. I use a combination of all in various parts of my work and I'm always open to finding new ways to improve everything. Some hardware developments have been pretty amazing too. Touch screens for mixers and DAWs have been around for a long time as well and not compared favourably.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 12:09:17 am

[Michael Gissing] "Perhaps it is when you try both with an open mind that you will find which is better for you. I use a combination of all in various parts of my work and I'm always open to finding new ways to improve everything. Some hardware developments have been pretty amazing too. Touch screens for mixers and DAWs have been around for a long time as well and not compared favourably.

"


It's a valid point.

But I'm still concerned with the question of whether those Apple associates would have become the speed demons they often are using virtual keyboards on iPads - IF they had been allowed to stick with the keyboards they'd likely learned to type upon in high-school.

At some point, your mastery of a technology seems substantially tied to constant, evolving and improving experience with it.

It may be seductively attractive to opt to improve something you already have expertise in - rather than climb a new learning curve that MIGHT improve things more.

Maybe.

THAT is my central point here.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 11:27:52 am
Last Edited By Herb Sevush on Aug 18, 2017 at 12:07:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm still concerned with the question of whether those Apple associates would have become the speed demons they often are using virtual keyboards on iPads - IF they had been allowed to stick with the keyboards they'd likely learned to type upon in high-school."

There is no chance, none, that a virtual glass keyboard can be used with the same efficiency as a dedicated keyboard. If it were so then people whose very livelihoods are based on their tactile efficiency would migrate there. But the opposite is true. Dedicated tactile keyboards, whether for audio mixing or piano playing, are the province of those who demand the highest efficiency in their work surfaces. It is amazing how fast some folks get with virtual keyboards, but the fact remains they would be even faster with dedicated ones.

the argument for virtual keyboards is the same as for most technological improvements - lighter, cheaper (and in the case of virtual keyboards) more flexible and ALMOST as good.

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 - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 4:23:05 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Touch screens for mixers and DAWs have been around for a long time as well and not compared favourably."

I think the question of audio mixing really helps to highlight the inadequacy of using anything other than dedicated hardware.

Even the simple question of faders makes it obvious enough. Trying to slide your finger smoothly over glass is an almost impossible task - the moistness or dryness of your fingertip will create a completely unpredictable effect that will adversely affect the result, either too resistant or too lacking in resistance. And then there's the question of not being able to locate the "fader" without looking for it. More or less the same issues apply to using a mouse (or other pointing device) to control a virtual fader - you simply won't get a completely smooth result to compare with a physical fader, and again you have the issue of having to hunt for the fader rather than have your fingers remember where it is. And of course you can't manipulate more than one fader at a time.

But faders are almost the least of the problem. Virtually everything else is controlled using virtual knobs, including panning and almost all major effect parameters. A virtual knob has to be the single worst user interface known to man - why we still have to put up with this skeuomorphic abomination is beyond me. In no way could it ever replicate the usability of a physical rotary encoder, which of course mimics the analogue "pots" of old. Again the speed of use and accuracy of physical rotary encoders is a huge advantage that I don't see any virtual interface getting remotely close to.

It's not to say that the future doesn't hold something superior to the current hardware conventions, but there is not even the remotest sign of it on the horizon.

Audio mixing so obviously benefits from the tactile feel of physical hardware and is always compromised by virtual simulations. And virtual simulations is all that we are currently offered.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 5:27:35 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "A virtual knob has to be the single worst user interface known to man - why we still have to put up with this skeuomorphic abomination is beyond me."

Oh man, I hate virtual knobs with a passion!


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 8:07:58 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "[Simon Ubsdell] "A virtual knob has to be the single worst user interface known to man - why we still have to put up with this skeuomorphic abomination is beyond me."

Oh man, I hate virtual knobs with a passion!"


Completely agree!!

Shawn



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 8:47:04 am

[Bill Davis] "PERHAPS - it's only when you accept that the new touchscreen has the CAPABILITY of being close to or equal to that tactile input device - do you can begin to achieve equivalent mastery?"

Why assume that someone hasn't already put multiple technologies through their paces and come to a conclusion based on practical experience? For example, I had a Palm Pre w/a hardware keyboard for 2yrs and an iPhone with a software keyboard going on 6yrs. I certainly type on my smart phone today w-a-y more than I did in 2009, but as an overall experience I don't think the soft keyboard is as good (ex. I could touch type on the Pre, symbols weren't buried three layers deep, etc.,). Am I in the market for a phone w/a physical keyboard? Not really, because I'm fine with the soft keyboard since in my application it's a difference that doesn't really make a difference. It's good enough.

Do I want the soft keyboard experience to be inferior? Of course not. An iPhone isn't cheap and I certainly want it to be an all around better experience than the old phone that it replaced. If anything I should want to convince myself and others that the soft keyboard is marvelous compared to a hardware keyboard so I can help justify the purchase. But I just don't think it is. Going with soft controls certainly has advantages, but it also has drawbacks as well. If I used a soft keyboard all day, everyday because I worked at the Apple Store I'm sure I'd get even faster with it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'd be faster than if I'd been using a hardware keyboard all day, everyday.

For a more germane example, I've colored with a KB/M, a KB/Wacom, with a small panel (Ripple) and with a larger panel (JL Copper Eclipse, Avid Artist Color) and once you get past the learning curve you just can't beat a control panel as a primary interface device. I've only used the iOS app a tad so I'm going to refrain from speaking definitely about it, though if I had to take a guess I'd say it's probably better than a KB/M, but below a hardware panel. The lack of tactical feedback and having to constantly take your eyes off the grading monitor so you can work the virtual panel are probably the two biggest short comings. But having to avert your eyes isn't just a soft panel problem.

I've found that with Ripple I'm having to shuttle a lot between the Ripple, the keyboard and the mouse as I'm using Resolve and that interrupts my flow while grading. Having just the rings and balls is certainly better than using a mouse, but it's not nearly as nice having more controls under your finger tips. I think I'd be happier with something like the Wave2 or the BM Micro, but when I bought the Ripple neither of those products existed (and I wasn't super excited about the original Wave when I used it). Plus I don't do very much intensive grading these days so it's hard to justify the purchase price for something better.

I have been playing around with the Quadro iOS app though, and I think it could turn an phone/tablet into a neat companion HID. It will take some experimenting though to see where I can fit it in.


[Bill Davis] "And what *I* don't want - is to always presume that because I felt I had the best practice yesterday - that means that thing is necessarily going to remain the best practice going forward."

With that being said, it sounds like you'd be trying out a variety of different hardware and software on a regular basis but for the last 6yrs, and correct me if I'm mistaken, you've been in a monogamous relationship with FCP X on your MBP have you not? To Michael's point, it sounds like you are fine to keep doing what you are doing until Apple makes its next move.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 8:41:04 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I have been playing around with the Quadro iOS app though, and I think it could turn an phone/tablet into a neat companion HID. It will take some experimenting though to see where I can fit it in."

Sounds suspiciously close to open mindedness - be careful here Andrew. πŸ˜œπŸ˜„



[Andrew Kimery] "With that being said, it sounds like you'd be trying out a variety of different hardware and software on a regular basis but for the last 6yrs, and correct me if I'm mistaken, you've been in a monogamous relationship with FCP X on your MBP have you not? To Michael's point, it sounds like you are fine to keep doing what you are doing until Apple makes its next move."

I'm actually just in the exact same boat as everyone else. I have a well conditioned "normal" that drives efficiency for me. The only real difference, is that the array of technologies that forms my "normal" are largely stuff that's arisen over the past decade - and I've been surprised by how much of the stuff I relied upon before that has dropped away.

Again, it goes back to my "forced conversion" to mobile track-pad-driven computing.

I did NOT seek that out. It SHOCKED me that it happened.

I expected to be working with the desktop-bound large screen editing systems that I spent two decades chasing - for the rest of my career.

Then I got intrigued with X immediately on it's launch - and it wouldn't run on my desktop system.

So to learn it, I HAD to run it on my (slightly newer era) laptop that COULD run it. And low and behold - as my efficiency increased - I found myself loving how much more efficient as a laptop editor I was becoming than I'd been as one using a desktop system.

There were many facets of that change.

Ending the CONSTANT reaching for an external device. Getting multi-touch myelinated as an expected set of actions. The geometry of ONE place to rest my hands that allowed ALL the data entry AND the cursor control to happen "above the wrist" rather than having my elbows and hips moving around all day while I was engaged in content creation.

One change was that I had to re-orient my acceptance of "breaks" to get up and move around - because while I"m "in the zone" I'm now at a "steady state" for longer periods - and that means I have to willfully break and move and not allow myself to stay lost in my focus zone for hours.

I didn't expect this whole transformation to be as pervasive as it has been. But to be able to open a bag and re-create the EXACT edit space anywhere and at anytime has felt like a HUGE liberation to me as someone who enjoys creating content.

Other's will differ. They will want wrap-around walls of monitors, multiple specialized input devices, and for all I know - a bespoke footrest in place in order for them to feel comfortable at their edit station. (seriously, it's apparently a big issue for some people who are chair bound for hours in offices.)

I just don't.

I've moved WAY farther away from needing ANY of that - than I used to be. I'm not saying it's bad to want or prefer or even need that stuff. Everyone IS different.

But that's the point.

I'm just one voice articulating that working WITHOUT that external stuff can sometimes be AS EFFICIENT as working with it.

It's just another idea to consider.

That's all.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 8:55:03 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm just one voice articulating that working WITHOUT that external stuff can sometimes be AS EFFICIENT as working with it. "

But you're not quantifying how it's more efficient, which means it's hard to gauge whether you're right or not.

I don't know whether or not you have ever graded with a control surface, but if you have, I cannot believe you would claim that grading with your laptop controls is anything even remotely as fast, flexible or accurate. My estimate is that my Artist Color makes grading 3-4 times as fast as I could possibly ever grade without it - perhaps faster.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong so I could clean up my desk and not bother with the hardware that clutters it, but the reason I accept the clutter is that in each case it makes me exponentially faster. I tried doing without the hardware for a number of years before realising it wasn't helping at all. "Faster" means not only that I can get the work out of the door quicker but also that I can make it better. The relatively modest investment pays off over and over and over, every day of every week.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 4:07:19 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd be happy to be proved wrong so I could clean up my desk and not bother with the hardware that clutters it,"

Simon,

Nobody's suggesting that you eschew ANY tool that works for you.

And if my day was divided by large swaths of Grading as opposed to Editing - I'd probably get a control surface as well. But it's NOT.

AND - more than that - I'm afraid from what I'm seeing - The delta between what an onboard Camera Pre-set + LUT + whatever the AI folks are creating in the labs in terms of automatic correction can do - and a dedicated colorist can achieve - is kinda shrinking.

Understand I'm NOT saying those artistic skills are in immediate jeopardy.

They will ALWAYS have value. Hopefully great value for a LONG time.

But facing the incoming FLOOD of video production, it's fair to ask if ALL of video processing will move toward being less like the services you'll procure from a fine art studio - and MORE like those you'd procure from - say - a hair salon?

Which is to say, ubiquitous and not nearly as rare or precious as they are now.

I'm not ADVOCATING for that. Just trying to read the tea leaves of what's been changing across the industry.

As I've written before, the primary talent of my youth - that of a professional narrator and VO talent - has been GUTTED over the past decade.

And it won't stop there.

Not with all the AI stuff percolating in the labs now.

Having the COMPUTER compute a white balance offset and correct it? Trivial. Whether you have to push a button to initiate it or now.

Having a drag and drop LUT for the RAW conversion? Same..

We are inundated with people selling LUT based "looks" that attempt to turn aesthetics into an algorithm.

Yes, hopefully, there will ALWAYS be the artists who can out-perform the machines - but the mechanics of grading and "aesthetics you can scroll through and choose" are getting closer and closer to automated.

So I just don't think I'm going to be comfortable going forward basing my entire future resume on that type of current skill.

But maybe I'm wrong. I almost hope so.

YMMV.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 8:17:04 am

[Bill Davis] "AND - more than that - I'm afraid from what I'm seeing - The delta between what an onboard Camera Pre-set + LUT + whatever the AI folks are creating in the labs in terms of automatic correction can do - and a dedicated colorist can achieve - is kinda shrinking."

That's not what the discussion is about though. It was a discussion about the pros/cons of different human interface devices (both physical and virtual), not one about the impact of AI, computer algorithms and automation on the industry. Of course if you want to come at from the angle that complex HIDs in general are on their way out because machines will write, shoot, edit, voice, score, grade, mix and deliver content autonomously, that's a train of thought that hasn't been brought up yet.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 3:02:59 pm

[Bill Davis] "AND - more than that - I'm afraid from what I'm seeing - The delta between what an onboard Camera Pre-set + LUT + whatever the AI folks are creating in the labs in terms of automatic correction can do - and a dedicated colorist can achieve - is kinda shrinking."

No, it's not. Applying a LUT to a camera clip is not grading or color correcting. And I don't see any grading AI these days that actually works. Automatic correction is not grading and in many cases, the results are the exact wrong look for the situation.

[Bill Davis] "Having the COMPUTER compute a white balance offset and correct it? Trivial. Whether you have to push a button to initiate it or now.
Having a drag and drop LUT for the RAW conversion? Same..
We are inundated with people selling LUT based "looks" that attempt to turn aesthetics into an algorithm."


Often, you do not want perfect white balance. And LUTs are often wrong. Most of what's sold/given away on the internet as LUTs are someone's subjective "look" and most look like crap. They typically only look good with the demo footage that company uses to market the product.

Any more these days, most productions I deal with were shot with a multitude of cameras, each with their own log, pseudo-log, or raw format/look. The only one I trust is Arri and their Log-C. Even there, you still need to tweak. Most of these require manual grading, because LUTs, AI (whatever), simply don't work.

I expect every editor to get those clips in the ballpark before showing this to the client. While that might not require a dedicated console, it does take time and there's nothing automatic about the process. Having a console would definitely make it go faster. Naturally there's nothing that works with the FCPX color board, which doesn't help matters.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 3:11:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Often, you do not want perfect white balance. And LUTs are often wrong. Most of what's sold/given away on the internet as LUTs are someone's subjective "look" and most look like crap. They typically only look good with the demo footage that company uses to market the product.

Any more these days, most productions I deal with were shot with a multitude of cameras, each with their own log, pseudo-log, or raw format/look. The only one I trust is Arri and their Log-C. Even there, you still need to tweak. Most of these require manual grading, because LUTs, AI (whatever), simply don't work.
"


Yes, exactly, we shoot log a lot and simply applying a LUT, from whatever source doesn't work well 90% of the time,


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 3:51:34 pm

So is this where we have the spin off discussion about how LUTs were intended to be used vs how LUTs end up getting used by people that aren't aware of what LUTs were intended to be used?

Not to mention applying preset looks is nothing new. I bought Magic Bullet Looks back in the day, pre-made looks for Color, etc.,. But I guess saying "I'm applying a LUT" sounds more impressive than "I'm applying a preset".


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 3:53:11 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I guess saying "I'm applying a LUT" sounds more impressive than "I'm applying a preset".
"


And of course "developers" can charge a lot more more for a "LUT" than for a "preset" ...

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 3:45:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Often, you do not want perfect white balance."

This is a good point.

Which is why in Hawaiki AutoGrade, a product that I am no longer commercially connected with but which I was lucky enough to be involved in developing, we decided that the user needed a means of not merely dialling back (or up) the amount of white balance (i.e. a simple mix of the result with the untreated source) but actually "recalibrating" the process up or down.

With products that offer you a one-click white balance with no over-ride options, you can sometimes get lucky, but if you don't get lucky you're stuck with resorting to doing the whole thing manually.

I have to say, from having studied the colour science of white balancing just a little bit (I most certainly wasn't the technical expert on this project even though I came to feel I was on first name terms with Johannes von Kries ...), it's quite a lot more complicated than one might think, and it's fair to say that a definitive method doesn't yet exist, despite some examples of it being done extremely well.

And this is a relatively "simple" example of "automated grading" ... from which I think we can reasonably conclude that a fully automated grading process (even if such a thing were conceptually imaginable and I'm not sure it is) is a very long way off.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 9:10:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Often, you do not want perfect white balance. And LUTs are often wrong. Most of what's sold/given away on the internet as LUTs are someone's subjective "look" and most look like crap. They typically only look good with the demo footage that company uses to market the product.
"


Not talking about "aesthetic LUTs"

Talking about a LUT to conform a RAW file out of a particular camera to an output that appears like base graded footage.

Two different things.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 9:27:05 pm

[Bill Davis] "Not talking about "aesthetic LUTs"
Talking about a LUT to conform a RAW file out of a particular camera to an output that appears like base graded footage.
Two different things."


Well, in the video world, that's largely RED and ARRI, which don't use LUTs to convert the RAW to Rec709. If you mean factory log settings to Rec709, then what I said stands. They are most often wrong and don't look good - ARRI being the exception.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 20, 2017 at 12:21:54 am

Here's a further explanation of raw versus log, since it seems the term "raw" is being used incorrectly in this thread:

https://www.hdvideopro.com/columns/help-desk/formats-explained/#

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 21, 2017 at 4:45:49 pm

As you well know, Oliver - LUT is just - look up table.

Substituting new values for an old ones.

That process could care less whether the original data represents RAW, Rec. 709 or SD footage from a security camera.

A LUT is a LUT is a LUT.

Type, purpose, goals, all float.

But the thing itself is what it is.

That's all I'm saying.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 21, 2017 at 5:33:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "That process could care less whether the original data represents RAW, Rec. 709 or SD footage from a security camera.
A LUT is a LUT is a LUT."


That is just so incorrect and untrue. And yes, the process absolutely cares what the format is. No offense meant, but it seems like maybe you aren't clear on what raw is. So with my apologies, here's lengthy explanation.

Camera raw data (not capitalized, BTW), like .cr2 or .r3d is monochrome, raw Bayer-pattern (usually) sensor data, that cannot be seen without decoding. A raw decoder module - not a LUT - is used to do that. Like Adobe Camera Raw, Redcine-X or a RED plug-in. These do not use a LUT to generate viewable video.

Most cameras do not expose the raw values to post production. Many do encode viewable video in log gamma space. This means that a logarithmic curve is applied internally as part of the raw-to-video encoding, that brings the shadow and highlight detail within range without clipping. However, that video is viewable in Rec709 color space, but with a flat appearance.

There are two types of LUTs - and they often use the same file format - technical LUTs and aesthetic LUTs ("looks"). Technical LUTs are the mathematical inverse of the log curve used when the camera image is encoded to log space. This "expands" the flat image back to something else. Usually that's Rec709 color space, but not always.

These LUTs are mathematically correct, but don't necessarily give you the desired look, especially if you want more brightness, contrast, saturation, etc. So you'll often grade on top of the LUT's conversion. IOW, the LUT gets you 75% of the way. In addition, you can generally get the same look without a LUT, though it might not be mathematically accurate.

The other types of LUTs are subjective, creative, custom "looks" that aren't mathematically correct. Film stock emulation LUTs are one example. These are usually someone's creative interpretation of what a certain type of Kodak or Fuji negative or print looks like when transferred to video (its own subjective process).

In my experience most of the technical LUTs yield less than desirable results. ARRI's LogC-to-Rec709 LUT when applied to Alexa and Amira cameras is usually OK. Sony SLog3 LUTs are usually OK with Sony cameras, when they are properly set-up. After that, it's the wild west.

So your original premise, that simply adding camera LUTs automatically gets most editors the color grading they need, doesn't work very well in actual practice.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 21, 2017 at 10:36:33 pm

[Oliver Peters]"So your original premise, that simply adding camera LUTs automatically gets most editors the color grading they need, doesn't work very well in actual practice."

Indeed using LUTs in practice has taught me to insert a LUT on the second node in Resolve followed by a third node. this allows me to take a log or film look image and do highlight/lowlight recovery on the first node, before a LUT is applied. In my experience chucking a LUT on log images always needs pre and post LUT tweaks. And that is before we start working on a look. This is basic grading for a doco which thankfully more and more is being shot with these log or flattened gamma presets.

Raw is a whole different level with complex tweaking of many parameters like ISO, color balance, sharpening etc, all before we start adding correction nodes. Depending on the raw source, LUTs may not be applicable at all.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 21, 2017 at 11:50:12 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Indeed using LUTs in practice has taught me to insert a LUT on the second node in Resolve followed by a third node. this allows me to take a log or film look image and do highlight/lowlight recovery on the first node, before a LUT is applied. "

Depending on what you're doing in the first node, you probably only need 2 nodes. First node is preLUT + LUT, second node is post LUT. See the order of operations here:

http://vanhurkman.com/wordpress/?attachment_id=3331

Only HSL curves, Channel Mix, Soft Clip, Defocus, and Node Sizing are applied after a LUT, on a node. So if you're just adjusting exposure/contrast/color balance you can do it on the same node as the LUT and it will be identical to your 3-node structure.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 22, 2017 at 12:16:17 am

[Michael Hancock] "Depending on what you're doing in the first node, you probably only need 2 nodes."

I sometimes do just the 2 nodes but I often like to disable nodes to look at cumulative grade work and it helps to separate. I've grown used to adding nodes to separate for that reason and also to unpick or modify more easily. Having started with Color, I found you had to be precise about order when directors or DPs wanted an aspect changed. Resolve lets me jump in with new nodes anywhere in the chain.

It's less about actual signal flow than control of aspects to bypass


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 10:30:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "Talking about a LUT to conform a RAW file out of a particular camera to an output that appears like base graded footage.
"


So were we and in my experience they rarely work


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 9:47:36 pm

"I'm just one voice articulating that working WITHOUT that external stuff can sometimes be AS EFFICIENT as working with it.

It's just another idea to consider."

Obviously depending on the work you do and most people here who argue against your "a laptop is all I need" postings are possibly doing very different work to you.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 10:09:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "Ending the CONSTANT reaching for an external device. Getting multi-touch myelinated as an expected set of actions. The geometry of ONE place to rest my hands that allowed ALL the data entry AND the cursor control to happen "above the wrist" rather than having my elbows and hips moving around all day while I was engaged in content creation."

You have just described why dedicated ergonomic hardware is better. However, you are using it to describe an ASCII keyboard and mouse pad which is so far from designed hardware that I suspect you have never had the experience of editing with dedicated hardware connected to powerful computers. I really do wonder if your speed is in any way comparable to those that do.

The fact that X has made things faster and more fun for you is great and I see your enthusiasm is warranted but really Bill, I have always wondered about your experience and perspective. Have you, like many here, used various systems that offer alternatives like dedicated ergonomic hardware or have you always just used keyboard/ mouse?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 12:26:38 am

[Michael Gissing] "Have you, like many here, used various systems that offer alternatives like dedicated... "

Hell no. I'm a sometimes producer and nearly daily EDITOR.

I'm not and never have held myself out as a Colorist.

I think it would be HUGELY presumptous to claim I have those skills st anything resembling a professional level.

I do what a majority of modern editors do. I know enough about grading to understand when the needs of a project move beyond my level of expertise and need REAL skills.

The thing is, that's NOT required for most stages of editorial, is it? I thought our task as editors was to fix Color issues to get our work to a viewable stage for proper client judgement and assessment without gross flaws that can take a viewer out of the viewing experience.

As such, me buying a dedicated Color Board is something I see as the equivelient of a Rich Kid in a Garage Band buying a vintage Strat.

Lame.

But that said, I don't think that makes my opinions on the efficient operation in working with the color tools on a Laptop specifically for the types of work that most editors need to do day in and day out any less relevant.

If you're in that fractional slice of the industry that grades for hours every day - I'm not suggesting ANYTHING about how you should work.

This isn't a professional COLORISTS board.

It's an EDITORS board.

If you're an editor who does what I do every day - I most definitely AM saying you can do tons of what you will probably need done - right in X with your hands in the same place they typically rest.

Which is useful to know.

That's all.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 11:56:11 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sounds suspiciously close to open mindedness - be careful here Andrew. πŸ˜œπŸ˜„"

I'm always up for a change for the better, not so much change just for the sake of change. That's why I try to carve out my own 'professional development' time when work is slow so I can either explore new tools or crack open some advanced tutorials and dive deeper into the tools I already need to use on a regular basis.

[Bill Davis] "Again, it goes back to my "forced conversion" to mobile track-pad-driven computing."

That's kinda my point. Because Apple killed FCP Legend you tried something new (X). Because X wouldn't work well on your cMP you tried something new (making your MBP your primary). And it seems like you are cool to keep refining what've you been doing for the past 5 or 6 years indefinitely until Apple does something unforeseen that forces your hand again. Which sounds like a great place to be because you really enjoy where you are at now compared to where you were then, and if it works it works. Can't really argue against that.

But it doesn't really jive with saying you are always looking for better ways to do things unless by that you mean always looking for better ways to do things within X.

[Bill Davis] "I'm just one voice articulating that working WITHOUT that external stuff can sometimes be AS EFFICIENT as working with it. "

Not to state the obvious, but if working w/o it can be as efficient as working with it then the work being done isn't of the type that necessitated having the external gear to begin with. This comes back again to my point about the power of 'good enough'.

For example, sometimes I'm hired to do on location, same day edits at events/conferences and there's no point in schlepping along my broadcast monitor and Tangent Ripple because it's unnecessary. The parameters of the gig make doing extremely basic color corrections inside the NLE, on my laptop's display, under fluorescent lights good enough to get the job done. On the flip side, when someone hires me as a colorist I do use my broadcast monitor, I do use my Ripple, I do use controlled lighting, etc., because the parameters of those jobs dictate that I do high quality grading work in a reasonable amount of time. And even in those situation I sometimes feel frustration using the Ripple (as mentioned in my previous post) because I know from experience that if I had a larger panel I could do more work with less effort in less amount of time. But thems the breaks. If I had never used a larger panel I wouldn't know what I was missing. Just like when I first started grading using a mouse I didn't realize just how slow and cumbersome it was until I became proficient at using a panel (which I think took a month or two of constant use before I started to really feel at home with it).


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 2:50:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "PERHAPS - it's only when you accept that the new touchscreen has the CAPABILITY of being close to or equal to that tactile input device - do you can begin to achieve equivalent mastery?"

That's why communication these days with people who solely rely on their smart phones, sucks. Misspellings, incorrect grammar, no punctuation or capitalization. Short, inadequate responses, because they are too lazy or it's too difficult to actually flesh out an answer on the device they are using. For everyone one of these, I often have to send a back-and-forth string of e-mails trying to figure out what they really meant.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 8:32:53 pm

I know the folks at CakeWalk show that program working really well with touchscreens. Some of the other DAW seem to work well with touchscreens. I am not saying the whole editing process is done with touch screens but using the mixing board portion of the GUI seems to work really good in the demonstration videos. I think it is good to have the option of touchscreen as well as control surfaces.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "No reason to change perfection!"

I love your consistency Bill. Always the champion of the Apple new. Even when it sometimes takes a step backwards, you see the positive. But sometimes you have to take on board that people like me who have championed the development of a digital world since 1984 and have spent years working with developers on improving software and hardware might have a preference for what actually works at the coal face after 33 years of trying and testing.

What pleases me the most when young editors watch me grade and mix is they drool over hardware controllers and how they work with software like Fairlight. The ah ha moment when they see what you can do with ten fingers on a mixer and how you can go for hours without calling the physio.

I don't expect you to understand there can be a better way that is not new. You can't see it through your bias but I can and do accept when things improve and when they take a step backwards from all software and hardware vendors. Just don't expect respect for your views when you have such a limited single vendor view of the word.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:19:01 pm

The interesting comparison is the iPad. There are a number of iPad software emulations of physical control surfaces. Tangent comes to mind. This is where you use the iPad as if it were a physical controller for color correction. I have yet to run into anyone that actually works this way. No tactile feedback.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 17, 2017 at 11:24:50 pm

[Oliver Peters] "No tactile feedback."

Often it is touch screen software trying to emulate hardware that fails most. In a way I agree with Bill that just visually copying hardware that works is a bad move because it lacks the tactile and often the ability to do multi actions like real hardware.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 12:00:44 am

[Michael Gissing] "I love your consistency Bill."

Thanks! 😳

[Michael Gissing] "Even when it sometimes takes a step backwards, you see the positive"

Well, people spent a full two years constantly telling me I was "taking a step backwards" by adopting FCP X. Yet, here I am, WAY WAY faster getting my work done than I've ever been before. It's more fun and I'm WAY more efficient. You might not have had results like that. But I have. So it's made an impression.


[Michael Gissing] "What pleases me the most when young editors watch me grade and mix is they drool over hardware controllers and how they work with software like Fairlight. The ah ha moment when they see what you can do with ten fingers on a mixer and how you can go for hours without calling the physio. "

I'm quite pleased for the one hundredth of the one percent of the video creation market that will continue to make their livings grading on Fairlight systems, then. Good for them. I hope they can continue to make a living long into the future.


[Michael Gissing] "I don't expect you to understand there can be a better way that is not new. You can't see it through your bias but I can and do accept when things improve and when they take a step backwards from all software and hardware vendors. Just don't expect respect for your views when you have such a limited single vendor view of the word."

No problem.

My "limited view" seems extremely widely shared all around the globe. So I think I'm going to be fine.

Sure there might be better ways that are not new. But I'll continue to bet that with the massive amount of development money still being spent by ALL the technological companies working globally - that advances are not only possible - but common.

And what *I* don't want - is to always presume that because I felt I had the best practice yesterday - that means that thing is necessarily going to remain the best practice going forward.

This is all colored, of course, by (in my opinion) so many "technological" people getting the gestalt of X so completely wrong for so very long. All that virtual acrimony and ink spilled by the clueless - bellowing that it was useless out of the gate - when in fact it was TREMENDOUSLY useful to me literally from day one.

So once burned / twice shy and all.

Good luck with your process.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 10:21:12 pm

[Bill Davis]"All that virtual acrimony and ink spilled by the clueless - bellowing that it was useless out of the gate "

Assuming that the complaints were only by the clueless offends many skilled and experienced editors and post people who were not wrong in saying that X out of the gate wouldn't replace Legend for the work they were doing. You really do have a problem with accepting that there was then, and remains for many, absolutely valid criticism of the X software.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 18, 2017 at 11:57:26 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Assuming that the complaints were only by the clueless offends many skilled and experienced editors and post people who were not wrong in saying that X out of the gate wouldn't replace Legend for the work they were doing. You really do have a problem with accepting that there was then, and remains for many, absolutely valid criticism of the X software"

I completely accepted any and ALL criticism from the very few voices that had opened the software and could rationally discuss its ACTUAL operations.

Sadly, those voices were as rare as hens teeth.

The acramony I'm addressing was born of the period when it was excoriated by people who had NEVER opened it.

And then by a much wider class that tried it MARGINALLY - saw only what they were pre-disposed to see - then put it aside and continued to trash it.

(A group I think you'll see quite well represented in the "Off the Tracks" X Documentary, working its way through post now.)

In hindsight X was NEVER trying to merely accommodate an editors existing workflows.

And to pay fealty to their existing thinking.

It was attempting to develop and interest them in a new and bette process.

If a "professional" at the time missed that - whose fault is that? Some of us saw that and we weren't quiet about it - were we?

I still give an ear to plenty of voices who dont use X - but who can articulate its strengths and weaknesses - Including those it embodied AT its release date.

Those are the people who were and still are worth debating.

Those that come with "well NOW it's finally maybe OK for real work" are so late to the party as to be dismissible.

Including some still here that I try my best not to read nor respond to. If they ever do get to the point where they understand things well enough to do more than blather about what they clearly still don't understand - that might change - but I'm not holding my breath. Cluelessness (In others AND in myself) - turns out to be damnably hard to root out. Go figure.

X had ways - good ways - to get the vast majority of the videos the vast majority of video producers might have needed to get done from DAY ONE.

I know that because I did that. First hand. No theory based on reading pundits or preachers. Personal experience. Each "lack" somebody hawked I found I could skate around and STILL make my deadlines.

And while I was doing that - I was talking to others all around the world during X's first 2 years who were doing the same.

I'd counter that it's YOU who had the early days problem. And that's seeing the value ONLY of a too narrow subset of editing tools that matched your conditioned needs - and not properly valuing the broader changes that would hugely rise in importance as the software evolved. I get that. But it was an inflection point of change in the industry and if you missed it, that's not my business. That and perhaps presuming that all the other editors out there were mostly just like you.

This does not mean it didn't have "flaws." - it means there were growing legions who faced those flaws and discovered them to not be the "stoppers" that others suggested - but rather mostly rapidly addressed inconveniences that paled in the face of the fun and efficiency we were enjoying as X editors.

And X Sales figures - 1million in the first few years and 2million now - indicate clearly to me those views of the actual needs of professional editors - symbolized by people willing to PAY for a pro editing app - might have been, from the start, significantly different from your definition - whatever that might have been.

Fun to discuss anyway.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 12:43:48 am

[Bill Davis] "I'd counter that it's YOU who had the early days problem. And that's seeing the value ONLY of a too narrow subset of editing tools that matched your conditioned needs "

Of course I had a problem. But not in perception. Real problems like no round tripping to Color for grading. No way to export audio via any recognised format. It was a desert island with no lifeboats. I didn't need to open the software and try it because it lacked so many basic features that completely broke a workflow that I needed to run a business. There was no way I was clueless because I didn't open it and try to use it. I knew it would not work for me and anyone else who HAD TO HAVE THOSE BASIC FEATURES! (gee I hate having to capitalise but maybe you are not listening unless I do).

It's not fun to debate with you Bill because you have no idea about workflows that you don't use or care about. X was a dog on release and good for you because you stuck with that puppy even though it pissed on the carpet and chewed your shoes. You fell in love with it. Some of us just didn't want the puppy. Many tried and took it back to the pound. Meanwhile the working dog got euthanased. No amount of enthusiast revisionist history will change the fact that the X software Apple released was unusable to many who actually knew what they were doing and what they needed.

You are the one that's been conditioned to accept a narrow subset of tools. You just don't get that other people are constantly using a variety of tools in ways that you will never understand and that includes X. So they have valid positions to argue from.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 1:13:24 am

[Michael Gissing] "You are the one that's been conditioned to accept a narrow subset of tools. You just don't get that other people are constantly using a variety of tools in ways that you will never understand and that includes X. So they have valid positions to argue from.

"


So much this....

If you were cutting multicam Day one - what were you to do? If you had to send out to Pro Tools Day one - what were you to do? If you needed a broadcast monitor or even an external for a client to watch and review cuts -What were you to do?

Thats why alot of us dismissed it outright. Those are real everyday needs of ALOT of editors.

Still no decent timecode solution - but yea since Bill doesnt need timecode - why should he care?

My needs as an editor are fairly simple. Offline workflow - mostly straight cuts/ dips to blacks and the majority of it really based on doing crazy audio beds and sound design, but no external monitor meant absolutely no dice and no way to send to Protools was impossible for me as well.

Sure things have changed and I'll use X on personal stuff where I see fit, but day one - alot of us had alot to be upset about - the fact you dont care to acknowledge that speaks volumes.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 3:53:04 am

[Michael Gissing] "It's not fun to debate with you Bill because you have no idea about workflows that you don't use or care about."

Yeah, it's all my fault.

I only had 20 plus years of editing behind me at the time of X's release - including experience in quite a few types of workflows - plus apparently something you appear NOT to have had...

Which was quite as much "prejudice" about what might constitute a viable workflow for ANY other type of editor?

Here's a cute fact. It's not that I didn't see the things X didn't do on release. It's just that EVERY SINGLE critique about X appearing in the first year was stuff I was able to acknowledge - understand and work around.

I was doing Multicam in X BEFORE X added it. It was trivial. Just sync the camera shots as connected clips and hack away. EXACTLY as I'd been doing in FCP Legacy when the nature of my jobs dictated that approach.

You saw the glass as 80 percent empty - and bailed.

I saw it as 3/4 full - and sailed into a new era of productivity.

And here we are six years later.

I'm still excited every day to sit down and edit at a tool I can play like a piano - and that makes my editing WAY easier and more enjoyable than it's ever been in any of my 20 years doing this.

If you don't feel the same about your toolset. Oh well. Sorry.

I'm sure it's just because I don't have enough "experience" to see things your way.

Again, I'm NOT telling you how to edit - or what to use.

I'm telling you about MY DIRECT EXPERIENCE with this tool.

How it makes me feel empowered to edit faster and smarter - AND how it started making me feel that way the DAY IT WAS RELEASED.

Shit, I even enjoyed reading source books like The Accidental Taxonomist as I tried to learn more about database driven editing - struggling to evolve my understanding of keyword strategies that might make my searches work better. Something NO EDITING TOOL had EVER before encouraged me to do. And, incidently, something I now use to leverage search across the web, across commercial databases, in my own product AND in my editing with FCP X.

And X was helping me with that in my first TWO months with it.

And to this day - when I wonder if I should go OUT of X to do a particular graphic animation or reasonably complex audio fix - I pause and ask myself if I can find a way to do it in X. And about 60% of the time - I find out I can.

While you were dismissing it - I was learning it as deeply as I could. Because I keep getting signals that it was WELL worth my time.

An investment I'm now seeing pay off every day I sit down to use it.

Maybe Premiere Pro or AVID inspires you like that. I hope so.

Because it's really, REALLY nice

That's all.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 12:49:27 am

[Bill Davis] "In particular, the entire titling and graphics suite in X is just a connected subset of Apples Motion code

As an editor I do not want to give up what Premiere Pro has to offer for what FCPX has to offer (or lacks) as far as creating titles are concerned but perhaps you can convince me other wise. Keep in mind you must use two programs to accomplish something Premiere Pro can do very easy. I can create masks and track mattes much easier in Premiere Pro than you could using both FCPX and Motion together. The FCPX/Motion connection is a tad bit over-hyped in my opinion. I am not saying everyone needs to use masks and mattes but I can also create and animate basic titles in Premiere Pro really easy. I should also add that I have FCPX (but not Motion) and 80% of the canned titles included in FCPX are a tad bit cheesy to say the least.







Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 9:40:20 am

[andy patterson] "and 80% of the canned titles included in FCPX are a tad bit cheesy to say the least.
"


As they are in the new Titler in Premiere Pro


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 10:57:35 am

[Steve Connor] "[andy patterson] "and 80% of the canned titles included in FCPX are a tad bit cheesy to say the least.
"

As they are in the new Titler in Premiere Pro"


With Premiere Pro I can make my own titles, mask and mattes real easy. I can also mimic the canned titles of FCPX super easy. Having said that FCPX is about the same as when I last used it. I will try to post a video soon. Overall FCPX works OK on the Mac Mini for 1920 X 1080 projects.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 12:32:40 pm

[andy patterson] "With Premiere Pro I can make my own titles, mask and mattes real easy."

I was replying to your comment about the STOCK titles in FCPX.

With Motion I can make my own Titles, masks and mattes real easy too and easily use them in FCPX


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 1:27:32 pm

[Steve Connor] "
With Motion I can make my own Titles, masks and mattes real easy too and easily use them in FCPX"


Why create a mask, matte or title in Motion and then have to release the parameters to FCPX? Wouldn't it be great if FCPX could create titles, masks and mattes? Why the need for two programs? Basically what you are saying is it would be better for Adobe to take the titling system out of Premiere Pro and force Premiere Pro users to use After Effects to create simple titles. There are times when After Effects can give you an edge over Premiere Pro's titling system but both programs need a titling tool.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 1:23:38 pm

[andy patterson] "The FCPX/Motion connection is a tad bit over-hyped in my opinion."

I disagree. From a design perspective, I think the possibilities here are usually understated!

Adobe's new motion graphics template integration between Ae and Pr is a nice feature, but FCPX/Motion goes beyond graphics. You can build custom effects and transitions in Motion to publish to FCPX as well.

We do most of our work in Adobe software, but I pushed several clients' productions from FCP7 to FCPX a couple years back. Why? Because we could build some robust broadcast graphics packages in Motion for the editors to use in FCPX. We could expose a few parameters to them that they could tweak right in the NLE. We could also easily limit what they could change to stay within our brand standards.

I would encourage you to pick up a license of Motion and dig in before you judge it too harshly.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 2:13:44 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[andy patterson] "The FCPX/Motion connection is a tad bit over-hyped in my opinion."

I disagree. From a design perspective, I think the possibilities here are usually understated! "


I think you read my post wrong. I didn't say Motion is overhyped. I think Motion is a good program for $50.00. I am saying how the FCPX users talk about the integration between the two is overhyped. There are some cool things that you can do with Motion. Having said that FCPX on it's own should be able to do simple mattes and masks. That is why I say it is the connection/integration that is overhyped. You shouldn't have to use two programs to create custom titles for FCPX. That is BS. Apple can keep the integration but also put a robust titling system in FCPX so you don't have to switch back and forth between programs releasing parameters. That wastes time. I would hate to have to always use After Effects just to create a simple track matte for Premiere Pro. Do you see my point?

[Walter Soyka] "Because we could build some robust broadcast graphics packages in Motion for the editors to use in FCPX."

That is great if you already have Motion and want to learn Motion. As I stated why can't FCPX have a decent titling system? Premiere Pro users can create temples using Premiere Pro. We don't have to use a Premiere Pro/AE combo to create simple track mattes. Why should FCPX users have to use Motion to create a simple track matte and also have to waste time releasing the parameters of Motion into FCPX?

[Walter Soyka] "We could expose a few parameters to them that they could tweak right in the NLE. We could also easily limit what they could change to stay within our brand standards."

I have already stated in several posts that templates can be useful but you know what could also be useful? Allowing FCPX do to all that with out the need for Motion. That way you only have to learn one program as opposed to two. Motion could be used for those times you want to take the titles to the cutting edge. AE can be used with Premiere Pro for that purpose as well.

[Walter Soyka] "
I would encourage you to pick up a license of Motion and dig in before you judge it too harshly."


I already know what it can do. I am not knocking Motion nor have I ever. I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it's own. I am saying the FCPX/Motion connection is overhyped because you shouldn't need to use two programs to create simple titles form start to finish for FCPX.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 4:07:52 pm

[andy patterson] " I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it's own."

It does, it only seems to be you criticising it on here


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 1:45:32 am

[Steve Connor] "[andy patterson] " I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it's own."

It does, it only seems to be you criticising it on here
"


Some people don't know any better. Having said that I will be doing some FCPX and Motion videos soon.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 5:15:40 pm

[andy patterson] " I am saying the FCPX/Motion connection is overhyped because you shouldn't need to use two programs to create simple titles form start to finish for FCPX."

This is a false distinction. The Ppro titler (which I like, by the way) bears no UI relationship with anything else in Ppro. It acts like a third party plug-in that just so happens to be included in the NLE. As long as the operation for the editor is fluid it does not matter how many programs or plug-ins are involved, in fact it can be hard to tell the difference. The only meaningful question to be asked is does the workflow allow for a fluid way to solve the problem? If the answer is yes it doesn't matter how you label the various component parts - plug-in, dynamic link, Ppro Panel - if it works together it works. If they included Motion as a "room" within FCPX the way the Ppro Titler is a "room" within Ppro would that somehow make it better?

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 8:23:20 pm

[Herb Sevush] "
This is a false distinction. The Ppro titler (which I like, by the way) bears no UI relationship with anything else in Ppro. It acts like a third party plug-in that just so happens to be included in the NLE."


You can dock the old titling system and even customize the GUI a bit. I don't really see it as a third party plugin. I will admit I like the way the new titling system lets you work in the program monitor but the new titling system lacks a lot of features that the legacy titling system has. I have heard Adobe is going to make the new titling tool much better.

[Herb Sevush] "As long as the operation for the editor is fluid it does not matter how many programs or plug-ins are involved, in fact it can be hard to tell the difference. "

I hear you but what if in a side by side comparison a few things were proven to be a tad bit more efficient using Premiere Pro?

[Herb Sevush] "The only meaningful question to be asked is does the workflow allow for a fluid way to solve the problem? If the answer is yes it doesn't matter how you label the various component parts - plug-in, dynamic link, Ppro Panel - if it works together it works. "

Something may seem very fluid until it is contrasted with another paradigm. That is not to say the FCPX/Motion paradigm does not have some cool features of it's own.

[Herb Sevush] "If they included Motion as a "room" within FCPX the way the Ppro Titler is a "room" within Ppro would that somehow make it better?"

Why would Motion be a separate room in FCPX? That would probably not be much of a difference but perhaps the implementation could be very good. Who knows? I guess the best thing to ask is would you want to eliminate the titling system of Premiere Pro and just have a room for After Effects inside Premiere Pro? If you say you want Premiere to have a titling system to create simple custom titles, lower thirds and track mattes I would think you would expect the same of FCPX. I am not saying tethering FCPX to Motion does not work but perhaps I can provide a few examples where FCPX and Motion make somethings more complex than they need to be.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 10:17:40 pm

[andy patterson] " I am not saying tethering FCPX to Motion does not work but perhaps I can provide a few examples where FCPX and Motion make somethings more complex than they need to be"

Cherry picking instances where one NLE is slightly faster than another is pointless. If you need to be in the optimum efficient NLE for every single aspect of your work then I suggest you get comfortable using 8-10 different NLEs on every project. The question is can you efficiently get all of your work done in the ecosystem of a given NLE - if the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter if that ecosystem uses plug-ins or dynamic links or any other way to connect the various tools you need to complete your work.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:09 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Cherry picking instances where one NLE is slightly faster than another is pointless. If you need to be in the optimum efficient NLE for every single aspect of your work then I suggest you get comfortable using 8-10 different NLEs on every project. The question is can you efficiently get all of your work done in the ecosystem of a given NLE - if the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter if that ecosystem uses plug-ins or dynamic links or any other way to connect the various tools you need to complete your work."

Unless, of course, you want to be pedantic about it :)


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 16, 2017 at 3:51:37 am

[Herb Sevush] "Cherry picking instances where one NLE is slightly faster than another is pointless. "

It depends on how often you use the said feature.

[Herb Sevush] "If you need to be in the optimum efficient NLE for every single aspect of your work then I suggest you get comfortable using 8-10 different NLEs on every project. "

I am simply stating FCPX could be more efficient. Adobe just revamped Adobe's titling system. I don't think it was all that great but Adobe thinks titles are important. So should Apple.


[Herb Sevush] "The question is can you efficiently get all of your work done in the ecosystem of a given NLE - if the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter if that ecosystem uses plug-ins or dynamic links or any other way to connect the various tools you need to complete your work."

I agree but FCPX is not as efficient as it can be. I will be posting some videos soon. Keep in mind my response was for a Bill. I don't think the FCPX/Motion thing is all that great. I know FCPX users think it is but it can make things more complicated than they need to be.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 7:38:47 pm

[andy patterson] "Having said that FCPX on it's own should be able to do simple mattes and masks."

FCPX on its own CAN do simple mattes and masks.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 8:29:28 pm

[Walter Soyka] "andy patterson] "Having said that FCPX on it's own should be able to do simple mattes and masks."

FCPX on its own CAN do simple mattes and masks."


I am hip but as far as I know you don't have the drawing tools and inner and out strokes as well as beveled edges. If FCPX can do all that could you please to a demonstration video? I would appreciate it.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 10:18:29 pm

[andy patterson] "I am hip but as far as I know you don't have the drawing tools and inner and out strokes as well as beveled edges. If FCPX can do all that could you please to a demonstration video? I would appreciate it.
"


Please don't - we've done this one already.


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 3:00:58 pm

Couldn't agree more. Motion/FCPX is a really powerful and very cheap tool for producing top quality video and graphics.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 7:42:08 pm

[Tom Sefton] "Motion/FCPX is a really powerful and very cheap tool for producing top quality video and graphics."

I am glad you agree with me. I guess we agree : )

I have stated Motion is a great program for $50.00. I have also stated Apple could easily charge $100.00 or even $200.00 for it and it would still be a good deal. My criticism is that you really need two programs if you want to create custom titles in FCPX.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 15, 2017 at 11:58:49 am

[Bill Davis] "The future of the system may hold things like capabilities to do basic database based mixing and effects at a clip level (speculatively) rather than needing to route audio signals through a virtual mixer - as it does with track based systems that still pretty much hold to the traditions borrowed from analog workflows."

Premiere has a system somewhat similar to this today. Bill, you might be interested in Premiere's Sound Essentials panel:
https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/using/premiere-essential-sound-panel.h...

Sound Essentials is not a replacement for Mr. Gissing any more than the Lumetri panel is a replacement for a colorist, but here's a quick overview of what it can do. The panel is task-focused. It aims to provide simplified controls for common audio work like unifying volume levels, reducing background noise, improving clarity and enhancing vocals, etc.

You can declare any clip Dialogue, Music, SFX, or Ambience, and perform type-specific tasks on them individually or en masse through the Sound Essentials panel. This includes an "Auto Match" for volume that sounds like your speculative database mixing feature request.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - steady as she goes.
on Aug 19, 2017 at 5:43:31 pm

Of course, what's really funny about the touch versus dedicated controller discussion, is that Apple felt the need to develop Apple Pencil, just to better interact with iPad Pro. I guess fingers just weren't good enough. ☺

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

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