-
Creative Cloud
-
[James Ewart] ” Changing gear manually is somewhat tedious.”
Not if you take the drives I take.
-
[James Ewart] “Another vote for the automatic. Changing gear manually is somewhat tedious.”
hehehe I drove a stick for years and loved it, until I moved on a street that has a gazillion stop signs.
It got old real fast : )
Really though, it’s a good analogy because have you notice………..it’s very hard to find a car with a stick these days. Even a sports car.
Heck, it was getting hard 20 years ago when I got mine.
My dad had us learn to drive a stick so we could drive most any vehicle.
I’m glad I learned on tracks. If I ever need to go back.
I’m sure folks who like tracks don’t want it to go the way of the stick. Hard to find.
Folks who like X don’t want to go back to tracks.
If both groups could be assured somehow they could keep what they wanted there might be a little less tension ; )
-
Not in the UK.. other way round. Vast majority of cars are manual I would say. What does that say about us? Don’t know a good thing when it’s staring us in the face?
-
[Charlie Austin] “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.”
I rarely have to use track selections unless I am doing copy/paste operations, and it’s not something I feel like I actively think about.
When you work in FCPX, you have “tracks” as well, as you have to position clips if you use the mouse so that they don’t jump into the primary if that’s not what you want, or use a different keyboard shortcut if you are editing from there.
I find I use the keyboard more often in FCPX, but it’s not to the point where I feel that the workflow is so much more revolutionary than how I handle tracks within Premiere.
-
[Charlie Austin] “Before you cut something in to the timeline in your NLE, do you have to make sure that the correct audio tracks are included or not, and make sure you’re not going to overwrite existing clips in the timeline?”
Rarely, sometimes, occasionally, often – all depending on the situation.
But I think you’re working around a more interesting question- what does it mean to “make a cut?”
Are you talking about the mental decision or the mechanics of the act. While the mechanics may sometimes be improved with the magnetic timeline, does that ease come at the cost of a loss of clarity in your decision making due to the “fuzzy” information the magnetic timeline brings? Yes you don’t have to patch your audio with X, but then your left with a mess of audio lanes that supply much less visual feedback then a tracked system. Your not getting something for nothing here, your trading mechanical ease for visual clutter, a trade that some might find worth it and others not.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
What’s the actual downside here?
For a professional mix we give to a professional mixer to do in Pro Tools or maybe Logic no?
Or if you are much cleverer than me you mix it yourself in one of those apps yourself.
I’m probably missing the point here..am I?
-
[Herb Sevush] “but then your left with a mess of audio lanes that supply much less visual feedback then a tracked system.”
Honestly, even though currently everything is a “mess” in the X timeline, I actually find it much easier to see what’s going on and navigate, even in timelines with dozens of clips. Of course this is subjective, but clip names are easier to read, the rectified, dynamic waveforms are easier to read at a glance, (easier than they are in Pr to me), and the timeline index is really nicely implemented. It’s kinda like learning a new language or something. Same letters, maybe slightly familiar, but they don’t make sense. Once it’s learned though, it’s just as easy as your primary language.
Could it be better? Definitely, I’m not an “X is perfect” absolutist. It’s really not a mess though, any more than Chinese or French is a “mess”.
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Gary Huff] “I rarely have to use track selections unless I am doing copy/paste operations, and it’s not something I feel like I actively think about. “
Fair enough. I, however, could literally not cut at all in a track based NLE/DAW without patching. Adding an audio/video clip from a multichannel source to a sequence with dozens of audio tracks and/or stacked video tracks without overwriting something would be impossible. And again, I never felt that I was actively thinking about it until I got used to not having to.
[Gary Huff] “When you work in FCPX, you have “tracks” as well, as you have to position clips if you use the mouse so that they don’t jump into the primary if that’s not what you want,”
I guess it’s a work style thing, but I don’t have that issue at all. Do you cut by dragging clips from the source to the timeline?
[Gary Huff] “I find I use the keyboard more often in FCPX, but it’s not to the point where I feel that the workflow is so much more revolutionary than how I handle tracks within Premiere.”
I pretty much only use the keyboard, maybe that’s the difference. And I don’t think the X workflow is wildly different than in a tracked environment. For me, it just removes the necessity of “handling” tracks at all. I like that. 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “seriously – why is that a problem? I’m not even half kidding at this point. Given the natural presence of multiple detached objects that you don’t want to intersect – after effects can be a complicated environment – so can audio editing software – how much does it demand from a professionals brain to examine that?
why is it in editing that there is a guy that turns up on your doorstep saying “man wasn’t editing stupid hard??? what was up with that complexxxity??””
This sums up the crux of the FCPX Debate, really.
It’s not that track patching is a problem (or in the case of Pr before CC, it was kind of a problem), but is track patching really the only way to go about adding audio to timeline? Does it really HAVE to be that way? As much as tracks help, don’t they also dictate a very specific and certain way of working?
One of my absolute favorite parts of FCPX, in the case of dialogue editing, is taking the time up front to choose audio channels which you can do to a number of selected clips at once (if you have 50 clips and want to modify all of the audio channels at once, you can do that as long as the clips have a similar audio channel config to start with). So, let’s say that I want to use the boom for everything. I can select (and name) the boom channel, tune off everything else, and every time I use a clip from the browser, my named audio channel is added. If I take the time up front and make decisions, those decisions will follow all the way through the edit. Think of this way, I never really have to think abut audio organization again.
Now, very often my sound mixer will want all the available channels to do a sound mix (boom, lav, and sometimes even the camera mic), so when I need to send out an AAF, I can select all the dialogue clips, non destructively turn on the other channels, and make an AAF. My timeline looks exactly the same after that process in FCPX.
If I were doing this in a tracked environment, I’d have to either, add the “muted” channels to the timeline and carry those muted channels throughout the edit, or alternatively, match frame back to the other audio channels, play a massive game of track Tetris to add room for three more channels of audio PER CLIP.
That being said, audio editing is still somewhat of a sticking point for me in FCPX. The above described scenario is totally awesome, and works great with dialogue tracks. Other aspects of audio still needs some work.
It’s not that I find track patching hard, it’s that I find it to get in the way of the edit. It is really truly is fighting the interface. Pr has come a long way in track patching, but there are times when the non mono tracks are really bothersome, and mixing and exporting a multichannel master clip while monitoring in stereo is still impossible. All of that process is streamlined to a few clicks in FCPX, and I mean that literally.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “n a tracked environment, I’d have to either, add the “muted” channels to the timeline and carry those muted channels throughout the edit, or alternatively, match frame back to the other audio channels, play a massive game of track Tetris to add room for three more channels of audio PER CLIP.”
Yeah, I love never (ok…rarely) having to match back to find and add another channel from a multichannel source, and that the timeline looks just the same if there are 6 channels used in a clip or just 1. And don’t even get me started on the ridiculous simplicity of outputting split tracks and or AAF’s for a mix. Yes, the latter requires an external app and a few mouse clicks. So what. Still far easier than prepping something for a mx in other NLE’s. 😉
[Jeremy Garchow] “That being said, audio editing is still somewhat of a sticking point for me in FCPX”
I’d disagree on the editing part, unless we’re talking about editing components without detaching them. And I’m sure that will get better. I actually find editing audio in X to be much better than anything other than a a real DAW. The sticking point for me is doing anything other than basic mixing. It’s not a huge deal, as i really don’t need to do it day to day, but it wold be nice to be able to. Bussing, mix groups etc would be nice. Though preferably without the complexity that entails in other NLE’s. I’m perfectly capable of using multiple virtual mixer-like tabs and windows and panels and knobs and buttons. I just don’t want to. 😉
————————————————————-
~”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