January 27, 2013 at 12:30 am
[Chris Harlan] “Oddly enough, the pain you are referring to is what I feel, these days, when I move from Symphony back to FCP. It was actually sort of a shock; I’ve been cutting promos in Symphony for a while now, and I had to move back to FCP to cut a couple of big Sizzles. What actually shocked me was the level I resented being back in the program. I’ve gotten very used to the Avid approach, have a tight system down, and found myself very frustrated to be back in FCP. And, it struck me–this is what the X folks are talking about. And a lot of it is the little details: color-coding tracks, the snappiness of the trimming keys, trimming while looping, sharing/exporting bins, the source timeline, the ease of using timelines as as source material, easily collapsable/hide tracks (I LOVE this feature) , waveforms in selection only. Once you get used to the little niceties, you begin to resent their absence in other platforms.”
You have succinctly qualified The Legend of FCP Legend™©®.
Nice work, Chris. This is awesome.
January 27, 2013 at 4:24 am
[Bill Davis] “n certainly understand any editor feeling that a single window design means that something is “missing” – but I have to say that feeling left me pretty quickly. Now my opinion can be summed up as I want two windows when there’s a reason to have them. And when I don’t need them – I’m much happier with just one really smart window.”
I’m okay with a single contextual monitor window. Montage had to work that way, and Speed Razor could work that way. FWIW, there is a history of NLEs with a single monitoring window. It wasn’t new in X, though it was new to many people. I don’t have to do a lot of ganging, though. Maybe if I did I would miss it.
January 27, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Bill, I in fact do and have used the program but your work around to a true mixer still involves a lot of by hand key frame tweaking for a real mix. Subtle volume changes in music for emphasis and silence require real time mixing. That’s not a one “range click” and you’re done issue.
January 27, 2013 at 8:34 pm
[Brett Sherman] “Yes, that’s true. But, at the time I got the most grief about suggested improvements from Avid’s selected forum moderators. Quite frankly, I was astounded. “
Yup. I’ve got no problem seconding that, man. Fighting that weird, smug Avid wall was a real PITA. Remembering that, in fact, is one of the things that has tempered my criticisms of FCP X. It also probably took me longer to get back onto an Avid then it actually should have because of a few blistery resentments of my own. But, that is history now, and many, many of the folks who formed that wall have also had changes of heart. So two steps forward, one step back.
January 28, 2013 at 2:04 pm
[Bill Davis] ” X puts out BEAUTIFUL toast.”
That’s one of my favorite quotes of the week.
But seriously Bill, we seem to be having one of our failures to communicate. I openly acknowledge and affirm that FCPX is a fully powered, professional NLE capable of producing excellent work in many workflows. There, feel better?
My argument is solely with your oft repeated refrain, whenever someone points out a particular flaw in X, in this case it’s inability to work with control surfaces, that it took years for FCP Legend to get up to speed, X is a brand new bit of code, and therefore given time it will do everything anybody comes up with.
Enough with this gobbledygook already. X is what it is right now, just like any other NLE. Apple has already delivered on all it’s promised upgrades. Whatever direction the software will take in the future is pure speculation. The argument that it’s too new to be judged on it’s own merits contradicts the idea that it should be taken seriously right now – you can’t have it both ways.
FCPX may one day get to use control surfaces or it may not, nothing about FCP Legend’s development is in any way a predictor of this outcome.
To understand more about the logic of predictions I would recommend “The Signal and the Noise” by Nate Silver. You might become a little less sure of what you think is coming down the pike.
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf
January 28, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Bill – I rarely use an outboard control surface , for the most part I just use the software mixer built into FCP since I think version 2 or 3……
using your metric we are at version 7 for FCPx….but that’s not the point….virtually every NLE has an automation mixer built in the software….it’s simply too clunky and time consuming mixing subtle nat sound and music peaks and valleys with a key frame pen tool – that’s X (ten) giant steps backward.
The rest of FCP X is useful but the audio is a deal breaker for every day use
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852
January 28, 2013 at 5:26 pm
[Andy Field] “virtually every NLE has an automation mixer built in the software….it’s simply too clunky and time consuming mixing subtle nat sound and music peaks and valleys with a key frame pen tool – that’s X (ten) giant steps backward.”
To be fair, though, Pr’s mixer is track and not clip based, so the automation is only useful on a locked picture.
January 28, 2013 at 9:08 pm
I certainly remember condescending attitudes from some Avid stalwarts but I also remember antagonistic remarks from some FCP flag wavers too. I doubt long time Avid users liked being called dinosaurs that soon will be put out to pasture (pardon my mixed metaphors) any more than FCP users liked being chided that they settled on FCP because they couldn’t afford a ‘real’ NLE. As Chris alluded to a similar rift has appeared between FCP Legend and FCP X and unfortunately the irony is lost on some people (on both sides of the isle).
[Brett Sherman] “For my workflow, it’s just not the best choice at this point.”
And ultimately this is what it all boils down to in the end. Not all workflows and personal preferences can be accommodated by one tool.
January 28, 2013 at 10:18 pm
[Andrew Kimery] “And ultimately this is what it all boils down to in the end. Not all workflows and personal preferences can be accommodated by one tool.”
This is absolutely true.
It’s also true that the smart technology user will also notice what the best current tool is that is available today to fit their working style – AND which tools are on the ascendence and which are descending.
We all know FCP-Legacy is on a glide slope to oblivion.
Apple clearly sees X ascending to replace it it as their premier editing tool and are developing it as such. Lets face it, they didn’t prioritize putting XML back in to appeal to the casual home editors.
AVID and Premier are working extremely hard to adapt their more traditional editing approaches to the new realities of a modern, file-based world and making great progress doing that.
So the race remains in full chase.
Fun to watch!
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’ LACPUG demo on Multicam…
Page 6 of 6