Creative Cloud

[Gary Huff]

[tony west] “Come on now Gary, you know you have to pick a track at some point.”

I don’t have a problem worrying about overwriting clips already in the timeline.

[Tony West]

[Gary Huff] “I don’t have a problem worrying about overwriting clips already in the timeline.”

now now Gary, you know that’s not what he was saying.

He wasn’t talking about clips already in the timeline.

He was talking about first putting something in the timeline and selecting the track that you put it in.

You don’t do that step in X

There is no track to select. That’s what makes it different than before.

[Gary Huff]

[tony west] “He was talking about first putting something in the timeline and selecting the track that you put it in.”

I don’t work that way.

[James Ewart]

Yup 1.2.5 was the first PAL version that actually worked. Before that it was was super buggy. I had a miserable time thinking it was my fault. And that first PAL version (1.2.1) was responsible for a lot of people turning their backs on the software and not giving it a second chance (sound familiar?), by the time version 1.2.5 arrived most if the bugs were fixed but it got off to a bad start. (For quite a while I recall, things like colour bars and slug were still NTSC)

Avid was pretty much the only editing tool at the time (Media 100?) so I suppose there were quite a few of us who saw an AFFORDABLE opportunity if it worked. Premiere was not fit at the time.

I know a fair smattering of Avid MC and Symphony editors who still do not consider FCP7 to be a professional tool. Let alone X!

Certainly if it were not for forums like this, living in the UK, I would be under the impression that FCPX was not even worth installing such is the bad rap it got/continues to get.

I actually think a lot of the Avid-based facilities have seen the somewhat botched release of X as an opportunity to try and kill it off.

I’m sure Adobe were/are hoping that Apple would leave the professional market and that X would fail. In their position I guess so would I.

It just feels to me like there is a lot of “wanting” X to fail to the extent that they are not really looking too hard at it. It’s very dismissive. And of course nobody wants to be seen to have been “wrong” do they?

The only people who are not slagging it off are the people who are quietly getting on using it.

There’s a new feature length doc on Muhammad Ali being cut with X as we speak by the way. A few Mac Pros with X wheedling their way into the BBC. Once you start using it all the time and thinking like it thinks, you realise it’s too clever to expire. For me the experience gets better and better.

So… would you bet against Apple?

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk

[Charlie Austin]

[Gary Huff] “[tony west] “He was talking about first putting something in the timeline and selecting the track that you put it in.”

I don’t work that way.”

I was talking about patching tracks. Whether putting something in an empty timeline, or making revisions to an existing cut/version/whatever. I’m surprised you never need to do that.

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Chris Harlan]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “Its much more now an FCP live environment where the objects on the timeline and the selection of them and their track is the major decision. It’ll be interesting to see whether adobe can hoover up a serious quantity of editors by simply providing a formidably advanced FCP style environment. If everyone bleeds away to FCPX and avid in either direction then they are on a hiding to nothing. the legend wasn’t that great.
“

There really is quite a bit of Avid in it. And some actual Premiere, too. From my perspective, the audio is monstrously good. Not only do you have both clip and track mixers, but the track mixers have sends to subs, as well. I just did a sizzle with all kinds sfx, dia, vo and mu dancing together, and it was a lovely experience.

[Charlie Austin]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “seriously – why is that a problem?”

It’s not a problem. In fact, I never even gave it a second thought in 20+ years of cutting. Until I started using something regularly that doesn’t require me to think about it. And now, when I work in an NLE which does require me to think about it, I find it really, really annoying.

I can drive a car with a standard transmission. It’s fun sometimes. But honestly , I prefer an automatic. In a good auto, I’ve got just as much control as I do throwing a stick around, so why bother…

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Chris Harlan]

[Charlie Austin] ” can drive a car with a standard transmission. It’s fun sometimes. But honestly , I prefer an automatic. In a good auto, I’ve got just as much control as I do throwing a stick around, so why bother…”

Well, see–and I just love a stick shift (except maybe in heavy traffic.)

[Charlie Austin]

[Chris Harlan] “Well, see–and I just love a stick shift (except maybe in heavy traffic.)”

lol, as soon as I hit “post” I wondered how long that would take. To torture this analogy though, would you (well not you, but in a general sense) then say that automatic transmissions were unnecessary? Useless? Unprofessional? 😉 How about synchronized transmissions? Real Pro’s double clutch right? And those automatic chokes? Was it such a problem to pull a knob? Jeez!

Anyway, as I said a couple days ago, MC, Pr and FCPX all suck. I’m switching to iMovie. Don’t even need to set I/O points or… well… edit, actually. it’s awesome. Can we get a forum topic for that please?

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[James Ewart]

Another vote for the automatic. Changing gear manually is somewhat tedious.