-
Time-lapse, FCPX praise
This article focuses on time-lapse and barely mentions FCPX but his sentiments are strong.
Seems, he likes editing in 4K in FCPX
FCP X for the final edit –> Use any editor of your choice! I get on with FCP X superb!
. . .
I export my timelapses in 4K, ProRes 4444 and edit them in 4K, so i can step down the resolutions if I need to!What I then do is load them into FCP X, to give them a color grade and to edit the final movie! FCP X allows me to edit the sequences in full quality 4K and scrub them in Real-Time. I have all the features I need and it makes for smooth editing!
-
24 Replies
-
Craig,
He’s relying on Quicktime Pro 7 in his workflow before it hits FCPX.
It’s too bad he doesn’t give more detail – I’d like to know what set-up he’s using for playback of 4K ProRes 4444.
Franz.
-
It’s a handy NLE for a photographer, I know two of them who like FCPX a lot, and being on a Mac it’s a no-brainer. FCPX really shines in that kind of job, since it seems to be helpful for those cutting not very complex pieces. Now that photography is granted with video production capabilities, the ones on Macs are a perfect target for FCPX, although when they find its limits it can be disappointing, even who isn’t well acquainted in video editing.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “He’s relying on Quicktime Pro 7 in his workflow”
Another issue Apple has to address assuming QTPro is EOL. While you can still get a 7 Pro license and use it in Lion, Apple has to consider developing another method. That there is not automatic install of 7 in Lion and no 7 Pro license with FCPX, presents one more minor complication. FCPX should have direct import of image sequences.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’d like to know what set-up he’s using for playback of 4K ProRes 4444.”
There’s a shot of someone using either a 15″ or 17″ 2011 MBP and what might be Glyph PortaGig portable hard drive on location. Obviously not sure if that’s what he edited with but I’d think it would be a capable system. There’s also an iPad in the shot FWIW.
-
[Christian Schumacher] “when they find its limits it can be disappointing”
When they don’t see any limits or such limits are removed with updates, they will be quite happy.
You shouldn’t assume they will find the limits or that such limits won’t be superseded in the future. If you said “if” not “when” that would be a different story.
The author makes no mention of limits (unless you find Quicktime 7 Pro a limit) and took his project to completion. Apparently he was happy with grading and “real time” response.
-
Motion handles image sequences just fine.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Motion handles image sequences just fine.”
But that’s another roundabout.
It would be nice if FCPX handled them directly. -
A friend of mine still prefers to grade and denoise his Milky Way timelapses (shot RAW on a 5Dmk2) in photoshop as a batch and then uses QT 7 Pro to assemble the 4k timeline.
He has AE and Premiere Pro but still prefers Photoshop for the subtle denoising.
-
I agree, but motion is better than Qt to make a movie in my opinion.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I agree, but motion is better than Qt to make a movie in my opinion.”
How so when all one wants to do is string together an image sequence and spit out a 4K ProRes .mov?
One can do that in Motion but how is it better? -
Allows for 16 or 32 bit RGB processing as opposed to whatever QT does (guessing 8 bit).
Allows more control over reframing.
Allows you to add any filters/retiming/pregrade.
Basically more control and quality.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up