-
Editing scenario
-
[Jim Giberti] “Why would I want to put a simple music track that supports my story on the Primary”
Because you need that music to land exactly at 1:30?
If that music is the constant, it should go in the primary, at least that’s how I would work if it made sense.
The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time.”
It’s all relative. Not a great way to work with music. Just sayin’.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Because you need that music to land exactly at 1:30?
If that music is the constant, it should go in the primary, at least that’s how I would work if it made sense.”
You’re definitely not getting my point.
Because I want one element or another of a story to maintain a fixed position, in no way means I want it to define the constant. It’s just A constant, one of many fixed points and segments, like in the editing we always did before FCPX.[Jeremy Garchow] “The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time.
“Which is fundamentally limiting in what should/could be an unrestrictive creative environment. The Primary can be time. But other places above or below can also be fixed in time relative to 0, completely ignoring the Primary as god, with the littlest of evolving on Apple’s part.
I simply don’t like being limited when it’s completely unnecessary. All the goodness of X is there, it’s simply better in many, many scenarios. It’s a forward move not a retreat.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
But whatever works for you.”Bingo Jeremy.
And if I were Apple’s advertising firm I’d use “Whatever Works For You” as the slogan for the new “FCPX 2.0 Introducing Optional Tracks” release. -
[Jim Giberti] “And if I were Apple’s advertising firm I’d use “Whatever Works For You” as the slogan for the new “FCPX 2.0 Introducing Optional Tracks” release.”
Actually, I think the copy should be:
“Final Cut Pro X 2.0… Back On Track”
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jeremy Garchow] “You move it out of the primary and disable it (or delete it if it’s gone).
Move new cue into the primary, all connected clips in place.”And how is this better? I’m not criticizing – just counting all the extra steps for something that can be done with one keystroke to a track.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Jeremy, that wasn’t what Andy was saying at all. He was saying he uses the out to hold his place in the clip so he can scrub forward from that point and that isn’t there anymore. Apparently that usability is not something deemed necessary by apple.
Plus I asked my cats if creating a favourite, logged in a separate area, which you need to find amongst all the other f created clips, was the same as a range remaining in the original clip after you left then returned, and they just looked at me as if I was stupid.
Your apparent tenacity on this is indicative to me of the blinded adoration and defence of FC10 on this forum at times that has really ot a lot of people’s backs up. You are, to all intents and purposes, wrong and simply refuse to accept it. I o f is something completely different from what everyone is talking about.
FC10 left out the very simple but useful feature of retaining your in out points on a clip and instead gave you an alternative feature of making favourite sub clips of your clips which you use to compensate for the lack of retained I o points.
2. Different. Things.
It beggars belief that you want to continue calling the sky orange mate. It really is blue.
-
Er, isn’t this revisionism? There is no FCX 1.0 They called it Final Cut Pro Ten, because y’know X is cool and apple are cool.
Are the going to call the next one Final Cut Pro Ten Two? Seems silly.
Personally I think they will never lose the version Ten because y’know X is cool and apple are cool, which is why you have update 1.0.4
Next big re-write 1.1.0. Or, of course, FCPX EOL.
-
Jeremy, your screen grab just gave me an idea. Why not add just a black generator, give it a custom roll, which in return you can control the height of the clip.
Not only can you control the height, but you can change the connected clip name to SFX Above so you know all above audio are SFX’s.
Just an idea… Don’t shoot the messenger boy 🙂
-
[Jules bowman] “Jeremy, that wasn’t what Andy was saying at all. He was saying he uses the out to hold his place in the clip so he can scrub forward from that point and that isn’t there anymore. Apparently that usability is not something deemed necessary by apple.”
I know exactly what Andy and everyone else is saying. I know that when you set a range and browse another clip in X, when you return, that range is gone. I also know that in 7, the in, the out, or both stick to the clip until you set another point, or clear in/out in the browser. It’s very simple.
Here’s the deal, you can’t tell me that I can’t hold on to a range in FCPX. I can. I can hold on to multiple ranges per clip. I’ve said this from the beginning, does is it work or look like fcp7? No, it does not. If you read Andy’s earlier thread about “Apple engineers, and their utter stupidity” or whatever missive was written that day about Apple
single handedly smashing professional editing in to the wall (again), you will see where I was coming from. It looks and operates differently than fcp7 and yes, it requires a few more keystrokes and forethought. Big. Deal. If you hit the right buttons (actually it’s just one more button), the actual intent of holding on to a range is there. Is it not?There are more pressing things to get fixed on FCPX that it actually can not do at all.
I take this stuff very seriously. We are looking to switch to a new workflow, but we aren’t going to be the type to buy every single NLE variant out there on ever OS and make a decision. We simply don’t have the time or money so we aren’t in a massive rush to switch.
CS6 is a very powerful set of tools, but there are certain things that are holding us, our shop, from using it.
Media management/conform and reconnect is one of those. We have a few users, and I am busy enough working my own projects than needing to try and fix everyone else’s.
So while FCPX is missing a few buttons and functions here and there, other NLEs are missing some very crucial functionality when it comes to workflow as it pertains to our business. That doesn’t mean that NLE won’t work for everyone, or even most people. It just doesn’t work for us.
Retaining in and out points, or really as FCPX employs it, retaining a range, is absolutely possible in FCPX, isn’t it? Is it named a little something different? Does it look a little different than you’re used to? Absolutely. No argument there, but the functionality does exist whether you choose to believe it or not.
So, while I might have a different view of the sky, mate, I see that it’s blue. Is X’s method better? That’s your decision. As I said to David, the jury is still out on “better”. There’s much more that needs fixing than holding on to a range.
Copy/paste attributes is one of those.
Multichannel audio editing is another.
Range based Project export another (without goofy workarounds, but even then it’s possible).
The there a huge list of nice to haves. I am not sitting around lamenting on why FCPX looks completely different from any NLE I’ve used, or why premiere can’t conform out of native very easily. I am in the midst of making a pretty big decision. It will effect purchasing, it will effect “training”, it will effect our workflow and archive. None of this is to be taken lightly.
In/out/favorite is small potatoes. I’m glad it’s even possible and when you sit down and actually learn to use it, you might see it’s really not all that bad.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up