-
Creative Cloud
-
[Charlie Austin] “I’d disagree on the editing part, unless we’re talking about editing components without detaching them.”
[Charlie Austin] “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.”
Exactly. Being able to select multiple components as easily as it is to select other elements in large groups in FCPX, being able to add Roles to Components before they hit a timeline. Being able to adjust the clip height of individual clips for more granule audio control (Sometimes the audio levels as well as the color board control are way too insensitive). Being able to send a selection of channels to a Role and then have control over that Role (like being able to add a filter to it, or adjust all settings globally). I guess editing was the wrong term. Sorry.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “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.”
Very interesting post. It’s always interesting to hear about the different workflows other editors use.
Given that I’m generally editing shoots that I’ve directed, I’ve worked out my audio preferences before production begins and changing patching only happens when I’m correcting an audio problem that needs one of the alternative tracks. Your workflow wouldn’t help me at all, but it seems quite reasonable.
[Jeremy Garchow] “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.”
That’s fabulous, a real time saver.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[James Ewart] “What’s the actual downside here?”
I don’t understand you, what’s the downside to what?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Charlie Austin] “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.”
That’s the point, you have to actually read the clip names – in a tracked layout I can figure out whats going on just by glancing at the layout – much faster than having to read anything.
As for waveforms – my old favorite, now long dead NLE, *edit, had a wonderful feature whereby you could easily amplify the waveform as much as you wanted, in discreet steps, so that you could make out as much detail as you wanted in quiet passages. You could apply these changes to a selected clip, to a complete track, or to all audio at once. Wish I had that feature now.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “That’s the point, you have to actually read the clip names – in a tracked layout I can figure out whats going on just by glancing at the layout – much faster than having to read anything.”
I see your point, though I really do feel it’s as easy, or easier to see what’s happening in an X timeline than, say, 7 or Pr. Very subjective of course. I do wish there was a way to automatically pin mx to the bottom and dia to the top or something, but I really don’t feel that it’s any more difficult to see what’s happening in the TL than with tracks.
I should probably qualify this by saying that, other than keeping cut music together at the bottom and VO/DIA near the top, (do-able in X as well with a tiny workaround) I don’t have a very organized timeline in any NLE when I’m cutting. My main concern is to fit as much as I can into as little vertical space as possible so I can see/manipulate it all without scrolling up or down or viewing tracks/clips at their tiniest possible size. I’ve always done my “mix prep” split after I’m done. I rarely, if ever, have less than 16-24 audio “tracks” in my timeline. often more. So that probably colors my preference…
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Charlie Austin] “I do wish there was a way to automatically pin mx to the bottom and dia to the top or something,”
Yes, that would change my whole outlook on the trackless idea.
[Charlie Austin] “I should probably qualify this by saying that, other than keeping cut music together at the bottom and VO/DIA near the top, (do-able in X as well with a tiny workaround) I don’t have a very organized timeline in any NLE when I’m cutting.”
I think this has a lot to do with your acceptance of trackless, since you didn’t use tracks as an organizing tool before, your not missing anything now while gaining everything that X has to offer. In your case X makes a lot of sense.
[Charlie Austin] “I rarely, if ever, have less than 16-24 audio “tracks” in my timeline. often more. So that probably colors my preference…”
I would think so. I’m generally cutting with 6 to 8 tracks, but on those occasions when I’m using much more I have a specific layout that dedicates one monitor (I have dual 23″ screens) totally to the timeline. 16 tracks are no problem that way, I haven’t tried it with 24.
As I said to Jeremy, I do find these conversations about specific workflows very interesting and enlightening.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Me too. I used to find it confusing because it was so different but I know where all my audio is and like the fact that I don’t have video on v6 and the audio miles away down on a11 and 12.
-
[James Ewart] “Me too. I used to find it confusing because it was so different but I know where all my audio is”
I understand that you can recognize that you have audio as opposed to video but how do you recognize which clip is sync dialogue, which is dialogue out of sync, which is sync audio efx and which is non sync audio efx, which is music, and if you have your music in layers, which is your drums as opposed to your guitar? I can tell all that by glancing at my timeline, without any need to “read” any labels or index. How do you manage to do that in X?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “I think this has a lot to do with your acceptance of trackless, since you didn’t use tracks as an organizing tool before, your not missing anything now”
That’s likely true, though when I was mixing I did, of course, use tracks to organize, and that carried over when I started editing. Now, maybe because most of what i do is offline, that habit has over time receded into an afterthought for prepping tracks. (Which, thanks to X2Pro, i don’t really need to do now anyway) I think if X gets something like Track Stacks in Logic it’d be the best of both worlds. You can fake it with Compound Clips, but they’re clearly not designed for (and generally suck at) that use case….
[Herb Sevush] “As I said to Jeremy, I do find these conversations about specific workflows very interesting and enlightening.”
Indeed. And civil as well. Someone will come along and ruin it soon enough… 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Herb Sevush] “I think this has a lot to do with your acceptance of trackless, since you didn’t use tracks as an organizing tool before, your not missing anything now while gaining everything that X has to offer. In your case X makes a lot of sense.”
This is a big deal for me, as I like to stay organized. I grouped it under “editing” in a previous post, but it really is spatial organization.
A track allows you to see things at a glance, as you mention. FCPX doesn’t have this part down quite yet especially when it comes to multichannel audio organization. I cannot select a group of related audio components very easily, or at least as easily as I could with tracks.
On the other hand, I do find the magnetic timeline to be a major advance in creative editing. The primary, secondary and connected methods are very very useful. Again, it’s not about solving problems, or solutions to problems that you don’t have, it is really thinking about it in a way that might be a better way of getting the job done. Not necessarily easier, faster, cheaper, but better. It still needs work, of course, but I don’t think the metaphor is as flawed as it has been made out to be.
Another thing, I am surprised at how much I don’t need to use mark in, and mark out. I know it sounds absolutely crazy, and goes against some form of “proper editing technique” that has been around since the dawn of the recorded electron, but I find I use “replace from beginning” to be so easy. The only in I have to mark in the in point in the event browser.
I also really enjoy the color board, and shockingly, I don’t miss color wheels too terribly. It is more difficult when looking at a vectorscope to try and skew a color in or out with the color board. Perhaps they need a square vectorscope to match the color board? 🙂 I’m kidding of course. Kind of.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up