Audio Mix Window

[James Ewart]

Okay.

I’m too loud. never had any major complaints from my audio colleagues because I guess they prefer me giving them to much because I am peaking usually between -12 and -6.

Thanks

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk

[Craig Alan]

Hi Bill,

When you select a clip with embedded audio, you can still see the “tracks” of audio in the inspector in the audio tab. When you show audio animation (looks like a baby version of what might be developed, no?), it looks the same whether the audio is embedded or expanded. So isn’t that more of a visual presentation than any real impediment to growing the audio capability of FCP X? I’m asking not telling so please be patient.

Second question, how seamless is the workflow from FCP X to Logic X or Pro Tools?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.

[Dave Gage]

[James Ewart] “I am peaking usually between -12 and -6.”

This is completely off the topic of broadcast, but I try to average between -3 and -6 when going directly to the web and set my Flash video player volume default at 100% and let the user control their own volume. At one point, I had a couple of complaints that the audio for my video was too quiet when I was averaging between -12 and -6. As many others here, I do also use the built-in FCPX Compressor with Limiter.

Dave

[Oliver Peters]

[Craig Alan] “Second question, how seamless is the workflow from FCP X to Logic X or Pro Tools?”

I’ve tested this. Translation is pretty basic. You have to make sure dual mono tracks are set that way and not stereo before sending to LPX. Fade handles are lost. Picture reference from the FCPXML is complete nonsense. So make sure to export a proper picture reference QT separately, which you can then import and sync into LPX.

Best plan is to do little other than basic levels in FCP X and make sure the channel configs are right before sending to LPX. You can send a full mix or just tracks back to FCP X if you like. When you do that, mix levels and effects will be backed in.

FWIW – I got a better translation of an XML from Premiere Pro than I did an FCPXML from FCP X.

– Oliver

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

[Bill Davis]

I don’t think there an “impediment” per se. I just think that the initial design concept with X (having both “embedded” audio attached to parent clips by default) as well as discrete external audio handled differently is a bit more complex than the standard Legacy timeline where your audio HAD to sit on fixed (Project) length tracks.

It can certainly be done. The issue is two-fold in my opinion. First, how high or low is the priority on the “to do” list for the FCP X team. And second is there an obvious “best way” to do this.

Everyone knows if X is going to continue to make inroads in pro suites, it needs better audio handling.

But nobody that I’ve heard about can seem to articulate what that is outside of simply adding in the old style mixing and mastering capabilities we’ve had for ever.

Maybe that’s actually the best that human interface engineering can EVER do for audio. Computer versions of the virtual sliders and pots and buttons that make everyone feel warm and comfortable.

If for one would like to imagine that perhaps the team at Apple is thinking about the new metadata environment they’ve created and imagining what a user interface could be that might be “better.”

Maybe that doesn’t exist. And maybe we’ll just get a virtual sound board like all the rest. If so, I’ll sign and more on with my life.

But it sure would be cool if they’re still thinking like they have from the beginning – and working on trying to go beyond just making a computerized version of what we’ve all had in the past.

THAT is the excitement of X.

To see what they come up with that’s DIFFERENT – now just how long it takes them to come up with their version of the same thing we’ve always had.

The possibilities of something fresh and exciting – rather than the same recipe with just more or less of the same spices – is still there.

It’s what makes being an FCP-X editor so much FUN.

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.

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “THAT is the excitement of X.
To see what they come up with that’s DIFFERENT – now just how long it takes them to come up with their version of the same thing we’ve always had.”

I don’t think that was ever a design goal. I think the objective was always to make things easier and more intuitive. That gave us the color board sliders instead of color wheels. One can certainly argue it’s a step backwards, but for others it meets the intuitive/faster criteria.

I think that’s the challenge with adding a mixer to X. How to make it faster and more intuitive. I’m not sure that’s possible given the corner they’ve painted themselves in with the design. Certainly roles could be used to create submix busses and a master bus. Or a manual grouping, like track stacks in Logic Pro X. I think they can add something, but would it ever be truly better than tracks and a mixer for the purposes of audio?

– Oliver

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

[Craig Alan]

[Oliver Peters] “I think the objective was always to make things easier and more intuitive. “

Spot on. And sometimes that’s genius because the complexity was counterproductive to begin with and sometimes you are throwing out the baby. The color boards are ok but it certainly easier to understand if the complementary opposite color is in the opposing direction as the color you starting with. Below green should be red not the same color green. You are not just decreasing green saturation. It gets harder to imagine what’s happening when you have to open up a 2-4 color correction windows to complete your correction as opposed to seeing all the color wheels/or rectangles you need in the same window. Sometimes what is needed to make it more “intuitive” is to educate people so they don’t feel its over their head.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[James Ewart] “Is this a tired debate that is done and dusted?”

James,

This has been much discussed, if you’re interested here is one recent thread (audio discussion starts with my first comment there):

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/68781

Franz.

[Marcus Moore]

I don’t think that grouped Roles are necessarily better in and of themselves as far as mixing is concerned.

The advantage conceivably is that it does the same thing as tracks without sacrificing the fluidity of the magnetic/connected clip/”trackless” timeline that’s at the heart of FCP X.

Thinking of a Role as a LPX “Stack Track” is apt, hopefully with the ability to collapse or expand individual Roles to hide complexities when you don’t need to. But at the same time all the elements within a Role maintain their individual clip connections to the Primary Storyline.

I think it would mean that we would need a new tab or alternate window where the Timeline Index sits, which would give you the same info as a traditional track would- Level, Pan, Bus, FX, Color coding, etc..

But I don’t see any way around the idea that Audio Components would have to be exploded in this view, so that their Role information dictates it’s position, rather than living in the grey space right below the video.

[Oliver Peters]

[Craig Alan] “The color boards are ok but it certainly easier to understand if the complementary opposite color is in the opposing direction as the color you starting with. Below green should be red not the same color green.”

I think Apple’s engineers would argue the + or – of a specific color is more intuitive than the color wheel model. Take a look at lab color timing, which is how the Dale Grahn Color iPad app is designed. + values are listed as RGB and – values are CMY, but the important part is that the buttons are designed as + or – and not color wheels.

https://www.dalegrahncolor.com

[Craig Alan] ” It gets harder to imagine what’s happening when you have to open up a 2-4 color correction windows to complete your correction as opposed to seeing all the color wheels/or rectangles you need in the same window.”

This argument is one of UI design, not color wheels. I don’t know of any app that lets you see all correction controls with 2-4 layers (or more) at once. Certainly not Color, SG, Resolve or Symphony. You have to step through secondaries, nodes, tracks or layers. If you mean the luma/sat/hue windows, then yes, it would be nice in one control window, but it is easy to tab through these or assign keyboard shortcuts.

As far as the ease of actual grading, I don’t know. I do it all the time. I like both models, so either one works for me. When I look at the color swatch and see the puck in the – blue area, I realize I have reduced blue. I should add that not all color wheel-based models use the same color science. You can get vastly different results in different software when you place the apparently-same controls on their various color wheels in the same place.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/grading-with-color-wheels/

If you prefer color wheels inside FCP X, then your best option is Hawaiki Color.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/hawaiki-color/

https://tokyo-uk.com/fcpxeffects/products.html

– Oliver

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