-
FCP X Explained…
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “therefore, if X had “a visually coherent track layout”, that would change everything?”
That plus the ability to easily edit with audio disconnected to video – as an outsider those are the two biggest reasons why I have never even tried X.
[Robin S. Kurz] ” I mean then you would, by your own admission, have both, right? Speed and your “coherent track layout” (whatever that even means and you postulate as a key feature for supposedly superior editing), no?”
I didn’t state anything was superior, I talked about my workflow. For me, visually coherent tracks is an essential, I leave phrases like “superior editing” up to salesmen. As to what that means, it means that while looking at my timeline at all times, without having to hit any special buttons, I can know the nature of every clip – is it sync, is it sync being used as efx, is it music, is it canned efx. I want that as constant feedback as I playback my timeline and I can have that with any tracked system, I can’t get that, presently, with FCPX.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “That plus the ability to easily edit with audio disconnected to video”
Huh? Since when can you not do that in X?? What are you talking about? (I’ll spare myself asking why anyone would even want to do that or how it could be super essential…)
But either way, with that, plus…
[Herb Sevush] “it means that while looking at my timeline at all times, without having to hit any special buttons, I can know the nature of every clip – is it sync, is it sync being used as efx, is it music, is it canned efx. […] I can’t get that, presently, with FCPX.”
… you clearly show you truly know nothing about X, not so much as the mere basics, and therefore can’t logically know what you’re even arguing for and/or against, but insist on doing it anyway. It’s amazingly cringeworthy.
Oh well. I’ll leave it up to others to figure out…
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Herb Sevush] “it means that while looking at my timeline at all times, without having to hit any special buttons, I can know the nature of every clip – is it sync, is it sync being used as efx, is it music, is it canned efx. […] I can’t get that, presently, with FCPX.”
… you clearly show you truly know nothing about X, not so much as the mere basics, and therefore can’t logically know what you’re even arguing for and/or against, but insist on doing it anyway. It’s amazingly cringeworthy.
“Herb is actually totally correct on this, sure you can get most of that information (apart from sync!) in FCPX but you can’t get it in a SINGLE view without a button press
-
If you know about ROLES and know how to use AND display them… yeah, you actually can.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “If you know about ROLES and know how to use AND display them… yeah, you actually can.
“On the timeline? Am I missing something? Of course you can in the timeline index (with a button press) but don’t you have to click on a clip or put the playhead over it to highlight each clip in the index?
-
[Steve Connor] “Am I missing something?”
Possibly the display option?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Bret Williams] “I find myself using the position tool for moving VO or music from a connected clip to the primary.”
I’m trying to understand why you would want to do that if the VO/music is your “primary” reference to begin with. Wouldn’t it then already be in the primary (where you can just as well edit subframe) in that case?
[Bret Williams] “The interface really wouldn’t be all that different if the P tool was the default for me as I don’t move stuff around in the primary, and the rough edit tools already reflect overwrite, insert, connect, etc.”
Judging by that description, it wouldn’t in fact change anything, no. ? The Position tool would be (is) functionally completely pointless as a whole for you by the sound of it. Which kinda was my point. Whether it’s “hidden” or not, no one really needs it in the end anyway. ?
Unlike ripple functionality.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Steve Connor] “Am I missing something?”
Possibly the display option?
“
Cool -score one to Robin! I don’t need the visual references that Herb needs so I’ve never looked for it!
-
[Steve Connor] “I don’t need the visual references that Herb needs”
Nor do I.
Ever.
Or anyone (using X) I know.
(I guess including you now… lol)If anything, then it’s relevant upon OUTPUT. Period. Since why should I (in the context of X) give a flying rats back-end where anything is in the timeline (i.e. what role it’s assigned to) before then? Completely and utterly irrelevant… unless of course you’re working track-based. In which case… yeah. I get it. I feel for you. ?
But hey… it’s there anyway, right? ?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “If anything, then it’s relevant upon OUTPUT. Period.”
BTW, yet another one of those “Why the **** do I have to constantly think about this — i.e. take it into consideration — with my every move while I’m editing??”-things in track-based NLEs that don’t come into play with X.
Cue the word SPEED and, oh yeah… PATCHING. You know, that synonym for “connected clips”? ?
And no, not the “arbitrary” but the “objective” and reproducible type of speed. No matter the project. No matter the person.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up