-
FCP X Explained…
-
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t get how this is “hiding”.”
It’s what’s called “intuitiveness” and “usability”. Is the (by far most likely) needed functionality I need right there? No it is not. It is “hiding” under shortcuts etc. In X, no shortcuts no switching no fiddling with prefs yadda yadda yadda… it’s there. Done.
Saying “learn the app!” also doesn’t cut it, since the underlying point is exactly that: you don’t have to learn any modifier keys or other (unmarked, unexplained) extra tools to make things work most efficiently i.e. to do what it in fact is you want to do and they way it should be done. Never mind that Jesús shows in the video quite wonderfully, that even if you DO know of whatever modifier or tool, you more often than not can’t even DO the ripple! “Clip collision!” is the key here, and exactly what sets the functionality apart by a million miles and what I think shows brilliantly the definition of the difference between his linear and non-linear he talks about. In fact the exact point where your supposed “patching = connected clip” claim backfires big time as well. It shows how connected clips have exactly nothing to do with the whole nonsensical, outdated, yesteryear concept of patching.
[Oliver Peters] “One could equally say that using the Position mode in FCPX is “hidden”.”
Tell me, Oliver, when and how often do you need the position tool and for what? Especially when compared to needing to RIPPLE, which this is about? Can I guess? And how could the position tool even be misconstrued to be anywhere near as essential in one’s everyday workflow, any more than the ZOOM tool?
Oh wait. „It’s a simple matter of actually learning the application”, after which even the noobiest noob would never miss the functionality. But then I guess that only applies to Premiere? ? Tell me how and why it is somehow apparently essential that noobs of all people just have to know about the position tool? Because you obviously have something specific in mind, no? Just please don’t tell me it’s because they need to be able to use X the way it’s not meant to be used, because they don’t “actually learn the application” as you so correctly recommend. Because I for one have maybe used the position tool TWICE and one of those times was for mere demonstration purposes. So much for essential or “need to know”.
[Oliver Peters] “the actions of the Smart Tool…”
Are the most convoluted, unyielding and unintuitive I have seen to date. But I guess I simply haven’t actually learned the app? Which I guess goes for nearly every long time Avid editor I know, since almost none of them seem to even know it exists when I ask, seeing that it was just plunked down in a random update a while back, with little to no explanation (or so they say). They ignore it because they are fine just going on as usual, or just plain don’t get it with the whole red/yellow(?) mode or whatever that is. Nor have I gotten it, but then I don’t edit on Avid so it doesn’t matter. Either way it’s certainly far from sit-down-and-work functionality which this is about.
Oddly, after about two clicks and no explanations, setting of prefs, fiddling elsewhere in the app, I completely got how matters work in the magnetic timeline. As do 99% of my students. Go figure.
[Oliver Peters] “You have similar steps to follow if you want video-only, audio-only or audio/video edits. Seems like a pretty analogous operation to me.”
Oh come on, Oliver. It most definitely is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination! That’s ridiculous! I don’t care if you want to do a video-only, audio-only or audio/video edit, at NO point whatsoever do you run the risk of inadvertently overwriting ANYTHING unless you do it on purpose! You edit what you want when you want to wherever you want, WITHOUT doing some ridiculous mouse-clicking dance (after two or three command-z’s of course, because you forgot the first time!) patching, locking or what not else before doing your edit. Or of course you DRAG your clip, hovering over the timeline waiting (hoping) for the right tracks to highlight before you drop so things don’t eff up… again.
[Oliver Peters] “For example, you cannot add a transition to a connected clip without it becoming a secondary storyline, even if just for one clip. To transition between two connected clips, they both have to be in the same secondary storyline.”
I’m sorry… what’s your point? Seriously. I don’t get it. To be able to transition between two clips in the primary they have to be in the primary. To do it in Premiere they have to be in the same V-track… what does any of that have to do with “attributes”? How is any of that different in principle from any other NLE or is somehow (apparently) a negative in such a stand-out way as you’re trying to suggest??! Just because connected clips get a “shelf” when transitioning?? Again… I have no idea what game changing “attribute” you’re getting at.
[Oliver Peters] “However, he does position other NLEs as “classic”, which can easily be interpreted as code for “old”.”
Well, yeah. Everyone wants to read whatever connotation into it that they want to I guess. Others just interpret it to mean “usual” or “most common” or “best known” or… but then there’d be nothing ominous to take offense to I guess. ?
[Oliver Peters] “However, in actual practice I rarely find that clip-swapping is done once the timeline is built to a complex level.”
Then I guess you work completely differently than me and everyone I know. Has been know to happen.
[Oliver Peters] “It also doesn’t become very useful, when you move a clip 10 minutes down on the timeline to a place within the first minute. Far easier to paste-insert than drag clips around. The FCPX timeline is far too cumbersome (sluggish) and finicky to do this on a large project.”
I love this. You’re talking about functionality that is factually not even possible elsewhere in the same way, in particular PPro, but still manage to construct some exception along the lines of “Yeah, it’s nice… but actually useless”. :-)))) Especially after I’ve been lead to believe “that clip-swapping is[n’t] done once the timeline is built to a complex level”. So is it or isn’t it?? I’m confused. But then even your paste-insert wouldn’t work as needed or expected in PPro either more often than not, so even if I were reduced to that (which I never have been)… erm, so? At least it works!
Has it occurred to you, that everyone wants to avoid swapping clips if at all possible, since that is (“classically”) an inordinate PITA, as the video illustrates beautifully? It has to me. I’ve been there, done that. Five years ago. Never again.
[Oliver Peters] “In addition, much of the time, connected clips are not connected to the clip you are trying to move. Rather, they are connected to the last part of the preceding clip. This means you spend extra time changing the connection points before ever moving a clip around together with its corresponding connected clips.”
So now you’re trying to sell us that ONE SIMPLE ALT-COMMAND CLICK on a clip to move the connection to where I need it before the move is some sort of laborious, time intensive task?? ? Seriously… now you’re trying way too hard. Because that is just plain absurd.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Oliver Peters] “One could equally say that using the Position mode in FCPX is “hidden”.”
Tell me, Oliver, when and how often do you need the position tool and for what?”
Seriously? Not everything’s a ripple edit!
-
[Steve Connor] “Seriously? Not everything’s a ripple edit!”
Er… then feel free to answer the question and not just quote it? Seriously.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Steve Connor] “Seriously? Not everything’s a ripple edit!”
Er… then feel free to answer the question and not just quote it? Seriously.
“Whenever I want to change, move or trim a shot in the primary without rippling the timeline!
-
To then do what? Example? What’s e.g. happening or going to happen with the gaps that you’re obviously creating with your move and/or trim? (I don’t know what “change” means in that context)
And I think you’re interpreting the question as my somehow suggesting no one EVER needs the position tool, which is obviously nonsense. In which case I think you need to go back and understand the context better.
– RK
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Quite possibly the best, comprehensive and astute comparison and highlighting of old and new that I have seen to date.”
I will start this by stating that I believe, based on demo’s like this since I obviously have not tried it, that FCPX is the absolute best NLE at moving clips around the timeline in such instances. But now let’s talk about the above demo …
We are shown an AV clip where the audio both precedes and then trails the video – both an J & L cut. Then Jesus, the demo artist, wants to move it to another point in the timeline and shows, first, how incompetent he is with Ppro and then how easy it is to do this with FCPX.
Now, for the serious editor, there are a couple of unasked questions here — what is the nature of the audio that is being moved and why is it longer than the video. Is it sync dialogue, which cuts in and out at very specifics points or is it background sound, like a street scene, where the extra audio is for a transition. I would want to know this before moving anything — for instance if it were dialogue, then after moving the clip into it’s final position I would have to clean up and move the other audio that got pushed aside “magnetically” when it found it’s new home, because otherwise you’ve created an audio mess. Bravo and all that for being able to move things around but the move isn’t over until it’s useful – if the audio is now overlapping other sync audio this move is incomplete, no matter how sweet it is to watch it being done. If the sound is background or music, then the simple Ppro way to deal with it is clean up the overhangs, ripple move the clip, and then restore your audio extensions to fit your new position in the show. But this would look too easy so Jesus does everything ass backwards.
In either case the main difference between X and Ppro is that with X you move and then clean up, and with PPro you clean up then move. I will again stipulate that even with a decent Ppro editor X is probably a little bit easier and faster to accomplish this with, but not in any way comparable to the hash that Jesus made of moving stuff in his demo, something that Robin may have missed because, as he so amply proved (https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/91146) he’s not too sharp with Ppro either.
It should also be noted that ripple moves that involved only video, only audio, or video/audio with equal durations are not an issue in Ppro, which of course is why Jesus chose the example he did.
So is X better at doing ripple moves in complex timelines – apparently so. Is it so much better that it should be your sole or even main criteria for choosing an NLE – not in my case.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Robin S. Kurz] “And I think you’re interpreting the question as my somehow suggesting no one EVER needs the position tool, which is obviously nonsense. In which case I think you need to go back and understand the context better.”
This quote of yours, from a now deleted post, might shed some light on his misunderstanding:
Robin S. Kurz:
“Tell me how and why it is somehow apparently essential that noobs of all people just have to know about the position tool? Because you obviously have something specific in mind, no? Just please don’t tell me it’s because they need to be able to use X the way it’s not meant to be used, because they don’t “actually learn the application” as you so correctly recommend. Because I for one have maybe used the position tool TWICE and one of those times was for mere demonstration purposes. So much for essential or “need to know”.”deleted post
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/91370I’m sure it must be amazing that anyone would think you ever said something like that just because you deleted it after you posted it. It’s so “obviously nonsense” that you unsaid it after you said it and are now trying to pretend it never happened.
Bravo.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] ” I would have to clean up and move the other audio that got pushed aside “magnetically” when it found it’s new home,”
Not necessarily Herb. It’s a good point that you are making but I would only add that “pushed aside” is not really an accurate description of what’s happening. “Pushed aside” makes me think something is being moved left or right. They move vertically either up or down to make room which is an important distinction. So your prior clips still start and end in the same point as before the move. (clips that are located near the new move)
So if my overlap sound was leading in on the original scene it will still be leading in on my newly selected scene (or vice versa). I find that I often don’t have to do much cleanup on these moves if any.
At least that’s been my experience. I will also admit I was surprised at how little efforts it was myself.
I would move entire scenes just to see if it made the story pop more if a certain person opened the scene or another.
It was actually fun and like Bill suggested I found myself trying things more often because it was so effortless. -
[Tony West] “t I would only add that “pushed aside” is not really an accurate description of what’s happening. “Pushed aside” makes me think something is being moved left or right. They move vertically either up or down to make room which is an important distinction.”
I apologize for not being clear, what I meant is that one of the audio files, whether original or new, will now be pushed to another lane, up or down so that they can all exist in the same place in time without overwriting each other. When this happens you get audio overlap – if the new audio is dialogue and the original audio is dialogue – well then you’ve succeeded in moving the audio but failed to create a usable track without further work. Showing a clip flying around a timeline is misleading if it doesn’t show the problems still to be solved by the move. To properly use Ppro you anticipate the problems beforehand, alter the tracks accordingly, and then make the move efficiently. From what I’ve seen of the FCPX demos you can move the clip very quickly, but then in many cases you still have to clean up the results, and that part is always left out of these”demos.”
[Tony West] “I would move entire scenes just to see if it made the story pop more if a certain person opened the scene or another.
It was actually fun and like Bill suggested I found myself trying things more often because it was so effortless.”I have no doubt that this is your experience.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
I would never really go dialog to dialog leading in.
For me it’s more like, I hear the truck coming before I see it. I hear the truck sound on the back end of a guy’s interview.
Then I move the truck up because I want it to come in at the back end of a gals interview. It’s still leading in, it’s just leading in behind a girl now instead of a guy. Nothing to clean up here.The point I’m making is it’s super easy and fast, that’s why I’m dong it.
I didn’t really do as much swapping before using X because it could be kind of tedious. It isn’t with this program and that has changed the way I edit.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up