-
FCP X and the Future of Editing
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I don’t seem to have to wake up fcpx, 10.0.6 has been much more smooth for me.”
What is see has been the same issue that has plagued X from the start. When you use skimming, at some point the viewer quits responding to the toggle between event clips and the project. Then you have to specifically click and scrub one or two event clips before it correctly updates to the project image again in the viewer. This is very consistent for me on several different machines and projects.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” I don’t get corrupt renders (although I try not to render)”
See the screen grab.
This is all ProRes4444 video from an Alexa. The primary is a full screen shot. The first connected “layer” is a set of product shots that are 2D PIP w/shadow. Titles above that. The top 5 “layers” of connected clips are PR4444 animation rendered out of Motion 5. It is impossible to properly preview this without rendering. You’ll notice the unrendered patch up front. That’s a retimed shot which starts fast and holds. Will not render at all (except during export).
Where I get render corruptions is at the various transition points. The corruption takes the form of the video that’s in the 2D PIP popping full screen for 1 frame. This is random and occurs both when I render the whole project, as well as when I leave it unrendered and simply export. Deleting render files doesn’t change the behavior. I’ve had this occur on two different machines with completely unrelated media and projects. The one in the screen grab was created after the 10.0.6 update, but the one on the other machine was created before.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
What’s the top adjustment layer?
I still use Ae for compositing, although I was mocking up graphics the other day in FCPX and found that everything worked really well. I had no render issues.
[Oliver Peters] “When you use skimming, at some point the viewer quits responding to the toggle between event clips and the project. “
I guess I don’t see this as I have carried over my FCP7 habit of using kb shortcuts to select which area I want to focus on. Even then, I have never seen this behavior, or at least I have never noticed it.
I do agree that transitions are weird in the primary as they are “missing” the start/end on edit options, especially at the beginning of the timeline, so I use slug fades and that seems to work better and is a little easier to manipulate. I used them in FCP7 too, that way it’s one transition at the beginning/end instead of the stack of 5 you have there.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “What’s the top adjustment layer?”
Oops, yes, forgot to mention. It’s a broadcast safe filter.
[Jeremy Garchow] “found that everything worked really well. I had no render issues.”
As I said, it’s random and unpredictable. I can re-render the project and it will be OK the second time or sometimes, I’ll have a corrupt frame in a different place.
My gut feeling is that a lot was changed “under the hood” with 10.0.6 because of the length of releasing it. This has undoubtedly introduced many new bugs.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Two steps forward, one step back.
-
[Gerry Fraiberg] “Two steps forward, one step back.”
10.0.6 has been nothing but improvements for me, but that is my relative experience.
I’m not saying X is perfect, it’s not, but if you look at 10.0.0 and 10.0.6, there’s measurable and significant improvement and most of it is for the better.
-
Jeremy, my flip “two steps forward, one step back” comment was in response to Oliver saying “This has undoubtedly introduced many new bugs.”
I’m a one man band operation. I bought and have worked in FCP X since day one, and am quite delighted to see the steady improvements.
– Gerry
-
[Steve Connor] “[Chris Harlan] “Secretly? But yes, I actually agree with you. I think X should become great at what it is, and there are plenty of other programs that deliver what it is not.
”Great comment Chris.
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure”“
Hey, Steve! How’s it going?
I’ve felt that way for a long time now. I’m comfortable enough with the other stuff that I’m not lacking for tools. Both MC 6 and CS 6 made that possible. And while I would have preferred something else once upon a time, I think Apple should really nourish X’s uniqueness. I also think that its change of direction has made it possible for the other NLEs to thrive/survive, which is also a very good thing.
-
David, sorry for my delayed response. I have a very strict rule against discussing PIOPs over Thanksgiving dinner in my house…
[David Lawrence] “Yes, but in FCPX, there’s no way to define a persistent one-point mark. It’s especially bad on the timeline itself. The one-point mark is held by the skimmer or the playhead position. It could’t be more fragile.”
Ok, now I see where you’re coming from. Thank you for this.
If you have a way to remove the fragility — which I argue SIOPs would — then I don’t think it matters at all if a default complementary point is set at the clip’s extremity, so long as your editorial operations allow you to choose whether they work from the in or the out, as FCPX does with the ludicrously-named Backstory. (And you thought the Ken Burns effect was poorly named…)
Since the editor still has control over whether the In or Out point is used to drive the edit’s alignment, you can still have all the same functionality with a range as you would with a single point.
Note that the range here includes the automatic extreme in or out point, which may be ignored by the next editorial operation. Is that an AEIOP? I wish I could think of a word that started with U instead…
[David Lawrence] “I think the problem is defined by the language of editing. When editors say “Mark in” or “Mark out” they’re referring to a very specific thing — selecting an exact point in time. Holding that point for an action now or later. A point is not a range and while range may be implicit, all that matters when we say “Mark in” or “Mark out” is often that single point.”
An interesting line of thinking. I see how we probably generally think in points on the record side and ranges on the source side — but again, the record range is implied (possibly overridden) by the source range and edit command alignment.
I think the fragility problem is separate from the AEIOP issue. I think fragility is a serious issue, but with edit alignment, I really don’t see a practical problem with AEIOPs.
[David Lawrence] “I don’t mind it being in a different class because “Mark in” or “Mark out” is different than range selection. I imagine it could be easier to understand and would be helpful to many editors who like myself, feel range selection alone is an oversimplification of the standard editorial toolset.”
But wouldn’t this mean translating back and forth between IOPs and ranges, depending on what you wanted to do next? That’s where I see SIOPs as a good option — they reduce fragility, but observe the current (simple) selection model.
[David Lawrence] “The problem with this is you’re allowed multiple range selections per clip. Which one gets recalled? “
This one is a really strange feature… I’m not sure if I think it’s cool or hideous yet. But I’d say when there are multiple ranges on a clip, recall the range that the playhead is parked within.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Andy Neil] “And conveniently dismissing compound clip behavior because it “should’ve been there” is just you creating a confirmation bias. It wasn’t there before. It wasn’t designed that way before. It was changed in 10.0.06 and it fundamentally changes how one edits in FCPX.”
Compound clips were fatally flawed before 10.0.6. The design was broken. This is a bug fix, not a feature.
[Andy Neil] “Perhaps you meant to only comment on the modality of the timeline, I don’t know. But you said “editorial model” in your OP and to me, that’s anything that changes significantly how someone can edit in an NLE. Like it or not, these additions, including multicam have done just that for FCPX. I agree that it’s unlikely that X will ever have track editing like you’re used to in legacy or Avid, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that Apple will make real changes to the editorial model that we all got in 10.0.0, since it’s obvious that they already have.”
I consider 10.0.0 a poor benchmark for Apple’s progress. 10.0.0 was an alpha-quality mess, likely released because of scheduling and marketing pressures. Certainly not because it was ready. As far as I’m concerned, 10.0.3 represents the first true working version of the program. Multicam, and roles were all in by then.
It sounds like we define “editorial model” in an NLE differently. For me, how the timeline behaves and how it dictates editorial operations is the core of the editorial experience. The timeline is the center, everything else revolves around it.
All the improvements you mention are significant. They added features, but none of them changed the basic operation of the timeline itself. Yes, we’ll see further improvements down the road, but I doubt the core model changes.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “All the improvements you mention are significant. They added features, but none of them changed the basic operation of the timeline itself. Yes, we’ll see further improvements down the road, but I doubt the core model changes.”
Doesn’t the tilde key modifier show that Apple CAN change the core model? the tilde key effectively locks any connected clips in time and breaks the connection, albeit temporarily. If Apple were to change this from a modifier key to a mode and the tilde key modifier shows that this would be easy for them, then that would enable fixed secondaries that aren’t connected. That seems like it would be a change to the core model?
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up