-
10.2.3 Update is here
-
Again, I don’t recall ever saying that a sending option was somehow a bad idea or that I’d somehow be disappointed if it ever shows up, which I’m sure it will. Nor am I exactly sure how you managed to extrapolate anything along those lines out of the above.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Walter Soyka] “The “long-tooth crusade” to add useful features?
“The long-tooth crusade to add BACK features that used to be a compelling part of Apple’s message: “It all works together seamlessly.”
Except now, it doesn’t.
This isn’t some passive-aggressive harangue from a Apple-hater insisting that Apple act in some bizarre manner to suit my own unholy, nightmare perversions. This was an ACTUAL APPLE FEATURE.
Or is this too part of my perverted fever dream? The drugs have worked well, but they may not have worked miracles. Is it the tongue of a demon in my ear, licking the lascivious lie that Apple used to have products that worked really well together, and they work together less well now?
So I’m assuming a lot here. I’m assuming that I’m currently in a state of relative psychotropic equilibrium, and I’m assuming that I’m not being deceived by Old Scratch. Instead of “FCP Legend,” should I be calling it “FCP Apple-Hating Schizophrenic’s Drooling Rant?”
(Actually, if you don’t mind, I’m going to call it that anyway.)
In any case, nobody has presented the advantage that Apple has introduced by REDUCING the degree of integration between its products in its new vision for how things are supposed to work in the best possible world, ie, Apple’s.
My guess is that there’s not one, but I’ve guessed wrong before. So I’ll ask it as a question: what has Apple, or Apple’s customers, gained from Apple making its products work less well together over time?
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Have you considered a simple right-click in FCP? 😉
“Ha, Robin I can’t believe I overlooked that. Thanks brother.
I should be in the other forum with this, but how do I step through the different fabrics once I have it in Motion. Can you do that?
-
Oh heck. I go out of state to shoot and the locals start the old squabbles again.
Herb, this is 5 years in and you still seem to be working SO hard to poke holes in a system you’ll never adopt. Why? Everyone I know who works at a high level in FCP X – in film, television, documentary, sports, animation, commercials, corporate – whatever (and I know a LOT of X editors worldwide now) NONE of them sit around and grouse about not having the same “send to motion” capabilities they did in Legacy. If you bring it up, they might respond “oh. Yeah, there’s that.” Before we move on to something else.
Herb, I get that it’s one of the central focus pillars of your current workflow – but if you ever learned X (I know, fat chance) it might surprise you how many of the processes you count on today to drive your editing efficiency and success – fade as they are replaced by other more mission critical concepts.
Tony and Robin and me and quite a few others who have earned deep knowledge in X all used to enjoy “send to motion” in its traditional form – but notice how few of us who are actually fully X literate – find what I think Tim referred to as this particular “feature downgrade” to be more critical to our editing happiness than others outside the X system seem to feel it should be.
So why aren’t we X editors more focused on what others see as “missing?”
I’d speculate the reason has to do with how much more efficient the whole editorial process is for us now.
Sure we miss things we used to have. But not THAT much. Because to get those – until and unless X changes someday – we’d have to give up everything else in X and that’s TOTALLY a non-starter.
I think of it this way. After 5 years in X – I’m enjoying editing MORE every year. Hopefully, you feel the same way about Premiere Pro. Life is hard. Tools SHOULD make it easier. X does that but not always the way you expect from the outside. I suspect some of this thread reflects that.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
FWIW
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis]
So why aren’t we X editors more focused on what others see as “missing?”.”
Because some of you can’t bear any criticism of FCPX?
-
[Herb Sevush] “Since I had already defined “send to motion” as a two-way, or bi-directional process, this implied that there is an equivalent to a “send feature.””
That’s what you get when you bring a knife (+misconception, lack of expertise etc.) to an FCP discussion.
It helps to understand what it is your “dueling” over before you enter into it, to avoid strawmen, the usual loaded questions, false causes, a slew of other logical fallacies and hearing what you want to hear as opposed to what is being argued. Because with my previous explanations I was refuting the claim that somehow the process isn’t “two-way, or bi-directional”, where—as everyone actually using X knows—it very much is. Nothing else.
Whereby my actual use keeps me from trying to sell anyone on the notion that “two-way” as a whole somehow hinges exclusively on the existence of a “Send to” command as opposed to being one of many possibilities for exchange.
I wasn’t offering up any appeasement alternatives to “Send to”, but rather pointing to why its absence isn’t even close to as dramatic as you would seemingly love to make it out to be. It’s called “arguing from personal incredulity”. Made obvious by apparently assuming that said feature holds the exact same level of necessity that it did in legacy, which, again, it does not.
But then you have your “two-way” and “Live-Link” etc., so all’s good! No idea what there is for you to be upset about.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Walter Soyka] “your “aside” means that there is no compositing-oriented workflow between FCPX and Motion?”
Quite the loaded question. But sure there is. Use it all the time. Aside from some of the most features and functionality that I’d go to Motion for (e.g. b-spline masking) are now directly available inside of FCP. On the other hand that’s also assuming that that’s even what everyone with the FCP/Motion workflow even need or want to do or it is even intended to cater to, which I personally think is obviously not the case. Could that aspect be more convenient? Yeah. Will the addition of some sort of “Send to” be happily accepted? Sure! Is it somehow the all governing, make-or-break feature it’s being made out to be? Nope.
[Walter Soyka] “but there’s more there than meets the eye [link].)”
Wow. Now that’s what I call intuitive and user-friendly. How could I think something (normally simple) like that is far better implemented with X/Motion. ;-D
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Tony West] “I should be in the other forum with this, but how do I step through the different fabrics once I have it in Motion. Can you do that?”
Erm… simply delete the ones you don’t want? They’re just regular, everyday image layers.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Erm… simply delete the ones you don’t want? Their just regular, everyday image layers.”
I love the condescension, is that the technique you use on your training films when people ask simple questions?
-
[Steve Connor] “I love the sarcasm”
Fascinating definition of sarcasm. We call it “question” and “statement” here. Go figure.
But it fits well into your “inflammatory one-liners” tactic, no doubt. How very helpful. *yawn*
– RK
p.s. yes, that was actual sarcasm.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up