FORUMS: list search recent posts

that ain't right...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bret Williams
that ain't right...
on Feb 22, 2013 at 7:41:40 pm

If your audio is longer than your video, it isn't visible when the clip isn't expanded. That ain't right!


Top clip expanded:



And un-expanded (normal). Wheres the audio?



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 22, 2013 at 7:56:09 pm

That's the way it's always been in the trackless world ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 22, 2013 at 8:12:43 pm

Have you only just spotted that one!

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 22, 2013 at 8:16:32 pm

Yes. And a year of use and I still haven't found a need to break apart clips, so I do this sort of thing all the time. But not usually isolated like that. Usually a split edit would be in conjunction with another clip. This was a special circumstance where I was using the source audio, and a tiny part of the source video to patch an edit on a mixed master. So it was a hack for sure.


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 23, 2013 at 5:18:22 am

When I first started using FCPX, I got so frustrated when I could hear audio, but not see it. I started expanding clips until I found it. I don't get frustrated as much. I've mapped the "Expand A/V clips for all splits". This will show me what I need to see without expanding every single clip.

They ought to have a marking for a clip that's hiding audio. Maybe in the next version.

---------
Don't live your life in a secondary storyline.

Mark Morache
FCPX/FCP7/Xpri/Avid
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 23, 2013 at 10:11:46 am

Clips that are split should stay expanded by default

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index


Bob Woodhead
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 23, 2013 at 5:58:11 pm

Mmmm... I do these all the time for L cuts, and I think I prefer having hidden as default. Almost always (for me) it's a SOT, so it's obvious it goes with the lipflap that's just around the corner. So it's not confusing where the audio is coming from, and keep the timeline condensed, which is much more of a constant concern. Even with clips as "whatever the tiny bar icon is called" setting, the timeline still sometimes needs more vertical scrolling than I'd like.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 23, 2013 at 8:04:38 pm

I see no need for them to stay expanded, but there's no reason they shouldn't have the same visual representation of a split audio clip as when they're not expanded with another adjacent clip. When you have an adjacent clip it shows the unused audio as dark. Why not show the unused video as dark, or something. Or. Better, show it the way it is expanded, except with all the useless blank space. The whole expansion thing is just idiotic anyway. Just let the audio be the lower, and the video be the upper and let us drag them both separately with a modifier. The whole expansion thing is visually unintuitive and visually un-informative.

As others have said- the timeline needs lots of work.


Return to posts index

Don Smith
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 24, 2013 at 1:13:39 pm

FCPX is doing exactly what you're telling it to do.

The lower clip has dissolves at either end of of an unexpanded clip. That tells FCPX to dissolve both the video and audio.

You don't see audio outside the edges of the clip because you just told FCPX to dissolve the audio into the audio of nothing. It's supposed to be nothing outside the clip because that's what you commanded FCPX to do. Don't want the dissolve to affect the audio? Then expand the clip first by double-clicking on the audio part. Then, as in the upper screen shot, a dissolve on the video has no effect on the audio.

I find that the way FCPX handles video and audio transitions is far better than the hassle that FCP7 had you go through. For FCP7 a dissolve only affect video (CMD-T). If you wanted the audio to be dissolved as well that was a separate action; highlight the audio transition point and OPT-CMD-T. Then, if you changed your mind about the duration of the audio transition and changed it, then the video transition time above it would also change. Drove me crazy sometimes.

The way FCPX handles is far superior.

NewsVideo.com


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 24, 2013 at 2:57:19 pm

In the example I gave, the audio is unaffected by the video dissolve. The video dissolve was added to the video portion only of the clip while it was expanded so it doesn't affect the audio. But, as is my original point, there is no visual representation of this when un expanded. You proved my point. You thought from the visual I displayed that the audio was fading out as well, but it is not. There is an audible audio file that is visually unrepresented when unexpanded.

The problem you are describing in 7 is annoying. It's a bug that was introduced in version 5 or 6 that was never fixed. Holding option used to allow you to change duration of video or audio dissolve independently of the other before that. No matter if they were originally added independently or at the same time. It's the only time I am forced to lock a track in the app. So I can adjust one without it affecting the other.


Return to posts index

Don Smith
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 24, 2013 at 3:57:26 pm

I see what you're saying Bret but I still contend that nothing is wrong here.

No, the expanded audio is not seen when the clip is not expanded (although its still there), but to be seen the sound would have to pop out to expand beyond the adjacent clips and co-exist with sound that the adjacent clips might have over the same moment in time. That's expanded. You want to see the extended audio then you expand the clip. How can you see extended audio when you're telling the clip to tuck in and be not show as expanded? You'll have to draw me a picture of what you WANT to see that doesn't involve expanding the clip and still see the extended audio because when the video and audio of the same clip are at different lengths either you have to tuck in for the video length or expand to see the audio length. I don't see how you want to see the extended audio while not expanding the clip so the audio can be free to show a different length.

NewsVideo.com


Return to posts index

Don Smith
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 24, 2013 at 4:04:44 pm

Further, just remember that expanding a clip to make an L or J cut is a simple matter of double-clicking on the audio part. Double-clicking again tucks it back in. That only affects the one clip. I've come to really like the quick double-click thing because then I don't have to hold the Option key to move the audio independently of the video like in FCP7. I understand Bret's wish for a visual indication that a cut is an L or J with a visual thin line extending and it's a good idea.

NewsVideo.com


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 24, 2013 at 4:20:43 pm

Ill never see how double clicking, then dragging one side of audio, then another side is faster than a single click drag to create a split edit between 2 clips. And if you then want a cross fade, you have to click drag out the fade handles on two clips. In 7, if you don't have link selection turned on, then the solution edit is as simple as a single click drag on the audio. Ok, with the R key enabled.

That said, X is always 2 steps forward 1 step back. They may not have the simple split edit, but its been replaced with sub- frame audio edits and easy lopsided audio dissolves. While slightly more tedious, I find my audio to be much more precise now.

As for visualization, I would think they would show the split in a similar way to how they show the audio split when the two aren't expanded and there is an adjacent clip. OR, just show there is something there like the first part of my example. Notice that when expanded, there is audio both preceding and following the video. When unexpanded, the first part doesn't get "tucked back in" and it would appear as if there is video. Obviously contradictory behavior to what you suggest is sensual in some way.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 24, 2013 at 4:23:03 pm

Oh, wait it just shows a gap clip. But it could show a gap on the second half as well. Both SHOULD show darkened audio on the bottom half just like a split between 2 adjacent clips. Ill make a mockup.


Return to posts index

Don Smith
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 24, 2013 at 5:37:06 pm

I'm just trying to understand what you want. Saying "Obviously contradictory behavior to what you suggest is sensual in some way." sounds insulting while containing no actual meaning. I'm not here to insult you or anyone. I'm here to debate a point.

*IF* you don't have linking on… *THEN* its simpler in FCP7? For me, I found it to be much less clicking to have linking on in FCP7 normally and then using the Option key to independently move audio only when needed. I don't understand how making sure linking is always off and its inherent need for much more clicking in normal editing just to save a Option key once in a while.

Back to your issue; you want to see extended audio both when a clip is expanded and when it's not expanded. That's my take on your original post at least. Am I misunderstanding this? I can understand the want for a thin line indicator but how do you display the extended audio that's darkened or not darkened without covering adjacent video unless the audio is on a different level (expanded from the clip)? That's what I'm trying to understand. There's a simple way to see the extended audio but you're not happy with that.

And, back to that 'darkened' desire. 'Darkened' means 'disabled' in FCPX. Don't you think darkened but active audio would be a violation of consistency?

NewsVideo.com


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: that ain't right...
on Feb 25, 2013 at 12:46:08 pm

Hmmm. Well there is definitely some room for improvement here. Why would an interface make it a point to display a darkened area where there is no audio, but not strive to show you when there is extra audio? If unexpanded is supposed to be this dumbed down basic mode, then either we do or don't care about the audio positioning. Why would I care to only know where audio has been removed but not extended? There is just so much Apple could do make things more visual/intuitive. Attached is an idea of how it could all be more visual immediately.

I would replace this unexpanded view...


With this color coded view below, in which the darkened area still represents exactly what it did before - that there is no audio from the above video clip being heard. But with the addition of the visual L cut incorporated directly from expanded view, showing the extension of audio from the outgoing clip. The blue and green colors are just icing on the cake that would help visualization across the board.


If a clip is a split edit, but contains audio from both sources (overlapping audio) then it wouldn't contain a darkened area, just the visual split edit. Or a combination. None of this is actually new except for the color coding. This is simply expanded view data incorporated into regular unexpanded view.


A clip that has a split but is not adjacent to another clip could look like this in unexpanded view...


And the related expanded views (below) would simply be color coded. Ditto with audio components view. Make the audio tracks green. And as I look at it, there would be no need for expanded view if we could simply edit the same way in normal view. My wouldn't that be useful. Edit splits without expanding AND the unexpanded view shows the split properly. Expanded view could basically be audio components view.




But ya know what? Maybe the best thing is to just bring back audio tracks. Or how about the way Motion handles audio? We could keep the current editing method, but have another window that can open at the bottom that shows all the audio in a track view. Each track could be a role or just a track. You move the audio around to organize it into roles by placing the clips on tracks. You wouldn't be able to move them horizontally, just vertically.


Return to posts index

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