-
A Lazy Editor’s Audio Workflow
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I know what you’ll say, it’s too many steps. Well, it’s how it works for now, and for me, it goes very quick if I need it.”
It also gives you more control working with fade handles as you can tweak the lengths individually. When cutting two clips of music together, I’m not sure I’ve ever had equal fade lengths on each side. But maybe, being a musician, I’m more finicky than most.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “but of course – just so long as you clearly and formally acknowledge that the X dissolve is basically useless, “
No, it turns out it’s the same as a dissolve in anything else. I found this whole discussion fairly ridiculous, but couldn’t really articulate why. Now I can.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/72179
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
jesus you’re funny charlie. So there’s no such thing as an asymmetrical dissolve now. well, I use something that looks a lot like it, and you take 10-15 keystrokes and numerous edit trims, fade handles etc, to arrive at the same point.
you poor soul. you really have got the X religion fever bad haven’t you?? 😉
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “jesus you’re funny charlie. So there’s no such thing as an asymmetrical dissolve now. well, I use something that looks a lot like it,”
Looks like it being the operative word. Read the post. Think about it. An asymmetric dissolve effect does not exist. This has nothing to do with FCP X, it’s math. 🙂
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up