-
Editing scenario
-
[Steve Connor] “Oliver is actually talking about a corporate video”
Yes, my mistake.
[Steve Connor] “it’s also a little patronising to suggest that corporate videos don’t have the same complexity as broadcast.”
I certainly didn’t mean to sound patronising (and I did specifically include a disclaimer) but if I did then apologies.
I think though there is a difference let’s say rather between long form documentary editing and short form advertising type editing (which is more the kind of thing Oliver was describing even though it’s technically a “corporate”) – and this might be where FCPX suits the former rather better than the latter. Complexity in this case is not about whether one or the other is more creatively demanding but rather about the level of intricacy that is called for in the actual cutting.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
Just read this thread Steve. It wasn’t designed with a wide range of editing needs in mind. As I have said before I can cut paying jobs on pinnacle studio. That, within this ‘what isn’t pro about it’ reasoning makes pinnacle studio pro. But it is a consumer conceived bit off software.
So is FC10. Sure you can make money using it. As you could with iMovie. But it was still conceived of as a consumer app and will, forever, have limitations for all who don’t do things within the limited parameters of apple’s perceptions of what editing is or needs to be.
My ultimate point is that it was conceived for consumers/prosumers and the basic premise of trackless events limits it’s use unless you’re willing to do the splits whilst juggling 7 hand grenades and whistling your national anthem through a porcelain recorder.
That’s great if you only need to do editing which fits in their perception of what editing is, but from day 1 this didn’t enable me to do things how I do them, and nope, not changing because Apple say jump, and as time has passed mo and more people have thrown up examples of its limitations.
Love it Steve, please do. And anyone else, love it, find apple cool and funky, stand where the puck is being hit, really, do. But this was not designed within the myriad of diverse needs of the professional editing world. And by professional editing world I do mean the established post houses who make most TV and film. I mean traditional. I mean the sector that kids wanting to edit generally aim towards working in. I mean the pro’s. The ones who get asked stuff by companies and little folk like me and you.
FC10 was conceived in an insular bubble by people wanting to realise a vision, not by people wanting to improve a bit of software used by millions.
-
[Lance Bachelder] “Vegas has had this for over 10 years and I use it all the time – Adobe just added this to CS6.”
Actually, grouping is in CS5.5 as well. It’s a useful feature and something I’ve always missed in FCP.
A couple ideas that would make it even better:
1) some sort of auto-coloring to make groups stand out visually.
2) if they could implement some sort of object collision avoidance behavior (i.e. automatically jumping tracks over or under existing clips while being slid along the timeline – at the editor’s discretion – then I think you’d get the best of both tracked and trackless worlds. It would give you the flexibility of connected clips without the limitations.
Off to the Adobe feature request line!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jules bowman] “and the basic premise of trackless events limits it’s use unless you’re willing to do the splits whilst juggling 7 hand grenades and whistling your national anthem through a porcelain recorder.”
Which is how I feel when I use Avid, but then again I don’t know how to use Avid anymore
[Jules bowman] “That’s great if you only need to do editing which fits in their perception of what editing is, but from day 1 this didn’t enable me to do things how I do them, and nope, not changing because Apple say jump, and as time has passed mo and more people have thrown up examples of its limitations.”
You’re right, using FCPX requires you to change the way you think, if you don’t want to then that’s cool, Adobe will be happy to take your money
[Jules bowman] “Love it Steve, please do. And anyone else, love it, find apple cool and funky, stand where the puck is being hit, really, do. But this was not designed within the myriad of diverse needs of the professional editing world. And by professional editing world I do mean the established post houses who make most TV and film. I mean traditional. I mean the sector that kids wanting to edit generally aim towards working in. I mean the pro’s. The ones who get asked stuff by companies and little folk like me and you.”
I don’t use it because I find Apple “cool and funky” neither I expect to the other people on here who use it. We use it because we like it.
So apart from having to re-learn some aspect of editing, what do you think FCPX is lacking that makes it “Consumer” and not “Pro”?
Steve Connor
“FCPX Professional”
Adrenalin Television -
[David Lawrence] “some sort of object collision avoidance behavior “
I think, for me, the thing of it is that when I have any kind of collision its usually because I have two things that are fighting for a space that only one of them belongs in. So, one of them has to go anyway. I just really don’t understand the fracas over clip collision at all. It seems to me that it is mostly the same amount of editing whatever you do. The sfx of the hand grenade pin being pulled still has to be cut and placed back where it was taken from to rest under the transition that precedes the clip you just pulled. The mother-in-law’s scream still needs to be trimmed back and faded out so that it is not continuing into the turtle race that comes after where you are inserting in to. The humming nuns from the clip just prior will also need to be trimmed back and faded. Everything still needs to healed a bit, doesn’t it?
-
Tracks. And grown up naming conventions 🙂
And adobe have my money. They also talk to me, gave me a hug, wiped the sweat off my brow and have already reduced my heart rate.
-
It’s beyond absurd that there are 24 replies from “yeah – this is a big headache” to “you hurt my feeling saying something bad about something FcPX doesn’t do….
The bottom line is – this problem (and many others) didn’t exist before FCPX. And in fact doesn’t exist in any other NLE (well maybe IMOVIE)
When Apple makes this as usable to do what you could easily do before —
without twisting yourself into a pretzel
The “pros” will stop making the other “pros” feel bad about their choice and just use it.
In the meantime FCP7 PP6 and Avid are all working just fine
Who has time to waste on an application that doesn’t do what you need?
Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852 -
[Jules bowman] “Tracks. And grown up naming conventions 🙂
And adobe have my money. They also talk to me, gave me a hug, wiped the sweat off my brow and have already reduced my heart rate.”
You’ll have to do better than that! BTW Adobe have my money too
Steve Connor
“Sometimes it’s fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl”
Adrenalin Television -
[Andy Field] “Who has time to waste on an application that doesn’t do what you need?
“Exactly, I don’t like Avid, yet I don’t feel the urge to keep moaning about it on forums 🙂
Steve Connor
“Sometimes it’s fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl”
Adrenalin Television -
[Steve Connor] “what do you think FCPX is lacking that makes it “Consumer” and not “Pro”?”
the fact that it is directly based on the methodology, GUI and workflow of iMovie. And steve – iMovie is a consumer product.
FCPX has simplistic, modal (connected editing mode vs primary editing modes), metaphorically reduced use case scenario/my first colouring book simplifications of the underlying track structure.
FCPX is directly based on, and flows out of iMovies methodology, in events, draggable marquee selections, trackless workflow, connected clips, direct links into iphoto and itunes, horribly simplified audio handling, horribly unusable waveforms.
FCPX is a souped up iMovie. It is, by definition, and the fact that it is trying to empower consumer hobbyists to step it up a gear by employing near identical methodologies to their free consumer video product, a prosumer solution. it is trying to lead consumers into more powerful capabilities, while still offering them the simplified hand holding amateur software environment they are used to.
Its kind of painful watching apple trying to tack multicam and some kind of xml spec on this thing. I literally think they are mostly doing it for PR reasons given the nuclear scale of the blowback they received.
but that in short is why its semi-amateur software – it adheres to the logic and simplifications and reduced use case of amateur software – at best its prosumer. In that context 300 is actually fairly expensive for the target market?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up