-
FCP X Explained…
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Whether it’s “hidden” or not, no one really needs it in the end anyway.”
The position tool is for more than just moving clips around with ripple mode. It’s also used when trimming, where you may not want everything to ripple. In fact, I was finalizing an edit today and spent half the time going into “position” mode to make some trims, then hitting P to get out of it for others.
To say that no one needs or it’s unnecessary shows a complete lack of understanding or imagination in regards to other people’s workflows or methods of working.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Robin S. Kurz] “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…)”
Are there timecode sync references when working with disconnected audio in X, and are there one-step controls to snap audio and video back into sync with each other? I have been told the answer to these two questions is no.
As to the why I would want to do that, I’ve answered that many times, and in this thread I spelled it out again in my post to Tony.
I don’t ask you to use my methods, but they’ve been working for me for a long long time, producers tend to hire me, awards keep coming my way, audiences keep watching my shows, and I tend to come in on time and under budget — so the question I could ask is not, “why do I work this way?” but why others don’t. I could ask it, but I won’t because at a certain point your realize that there are a near infinite number of good ways to do almost anything, and who am I to judge. If your an editor working for me, then you do it my way, but as for the rest …
Your correct that I am woefully ignorant of the workings of FCPX and because of that I try, and too often fail, to avoid talking about it. This whole thread started with a “demo” that demonstrated that Jesus has no idea how to work in Ppro. On that I have some knowledge. You might have even noticed that I started and ended my post by granting X it’s superior abilities in the area of ripple editing – if you can’t understand why that isn’t enough for me to switch NLE’s, well what else can I say …
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Michael Hancock] “To say that no one needs or it’s unnecessary shows a complete lack of understanding or imagination in regards to other people’s workflows or methods of working.”
Right. That is if you completely disregard the fact that it was brought up specifically in the context of “noobs“ needing it. So I guess you’re agreeing that that is the case? Or are we talking out of context now? In which case I might refer to my post further up where I clearly said that that isn’t what I was implying, since that obviously would be nonsense, yes. But thanks for the valuable assertion.
And never mind the emoji at the end that you chose to exclude from the quote. That couldn’t have provided any further clarity, I know.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
To quote your earlier post:
[Robin S. Kurz] ” 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”.”
I read this as, you don’t use it, therefore it’s unnecessary. Or perhaps that was hyperbole? In which case, how does that advance the conversation? Or perhaps you were referring still to noobs here? For me, the ease-of-use for an amateur is of little consequence to me – I want an edit system that is fast, deep, and gets out of my way when I edit. If that means I have to use a modifier, so be it. I mean, I have to use a modifier to “go to in” and “go to out” in FCPX, and that’s a pretty important function in my day to day life. There are aspects of FCPX that have greatly improved my day to day editing, but there are still massive improvements that could be made. Do you agree with that, or is the app perfect as is?
The idea that your way is the right way and others are doing it wrong is a common element to your posts Robin. It seems that, if you can’t understand why a person would do something a certain way, or you don’t like they way they do it, then it’s the wrong way and they’re wrong. Perhaps I’m just reading your posts wrong, but they come across as very condescending and dismissive most of the time, and I feel like it limits what could otherwise be a interesting and honest conversation about FCPX and it’s strengths and weaknesses, particularly in regards to the design choices Apple has made and whether they are an improvement over the classic NLE design, given different workflows.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Oliver Peters] “it used a filmstrip metaphor instead of a track-based timeline”
Right. And that has what to do with anything? …..
…Completely irrelevant to the discussion and quite the logical fallacy imho.”Actually not. It’s helpful to understand what got the software to this point. The premise of the presentation was that NLEs prior to FCPX were all based on a linear tape editing approach. That’s an erroneous point to start from. In the early days of NLEs, there was a fair amount of experimentation with design and interface. Many of these, such as Harry, Ediflex, Montage and others weren’t really track-based at all. They also relied on the clip-linked-to-clip method. Others like Avid adopted a mixture of approaches borrowed from film, multimedia and linear tape systems.
In addition, linear tape editing was based on time and a timeline in the sense that a physical tape with timecode provided these constraints. However, there was no analogue for vertical video tracks or even more than 4 audio tracks. This is a solution that is unique to NLEs and not linear tape. Unless, of course, you consider a video switcher to somehow be the vertical composting portion of the linear system. That, too, would be inaccurate, as a switcher would be more analogous to nodes in this metaphor.
Avid happened to win out in the early marketplace and others followed many of its interface functions. But there was a weeding out process along the way with other competing solutions. So, bringing up historical approaches is valid, as it corrects part of the basic premise of the presentation.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] ” In X, no shortcuts no switching no fiddling with prefs yadda yadda yadda… it’s there. Done.”
So what about things like the hidden and undocumented commands to make the tilde key “sticky”?
[Robin S. Kurz] ” 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.”
Funny, coming from the person who repeatedly calls every NLE other than FCPX the old way of doing things.
[Robin S. Kurz] “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… “
Not true for either FCPX nor Premiere Pro. Put a clip on V2 or a connecting clip, add a dissolve to the front of the clip, and you’ve created a transition. Primary to connecting, or V1 to V2 respectively.
[Robin S. Kurz] “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.”
Maybe you should stick to talking about software that you actually know. A lot of Avid editors hate the Smart Tool, but a lot of them love it. The point was that it’s quite contextual and people who get a handle on it like it. Every Avid editor knows it’s there, whether or not they use it. It was added a few years ago and not randomly. How can they ignore it when you say they don’t know it exists? And red/yellow modes (overwrite/insert) have been universal icons in post since before NLEs. Remember FCP “legacy”?
[Robin S. Kurz] “Tell me, Oliver, when and how often do you need the position tool and for what? “
I think that’s been pretty thoroughly covered by others. But in addition, another use is when you want to temporarily move some clips or scenes down to the end of your timeline, if you are using the timeline as a “scratch pad”. Rather than do it “magnetically” and then inserting a gap for separation, the position tool comes in handy. So it’s an integral part of the workflow and something I and many other editors toggle into whenever needed in each and every session.
[Robin S. Kurz] “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??”
I thought you believed that using modifier keys and commands you had to learn were somehow not a part of the FCPX workflow?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Alan Okey] “It also ignores the very real constraints that are imposed by editing for television, for example, in which the importance of timecode is central to workflow.”
Feel free to elaborate. What does that mean exactly? How and where are you NOT working with timecode in FCP X where it is “central to workflow”? And how do you suppose these guys (as one of the more prominent of many many examples) are working around this supposed shortcoming? https://apple.co/1hrM6zb
I’m very curious, seeing that you must obviously know your way around broadcast and FCP X so well.
– RK
“Sometimes I have a really hard time believing your a teacher. If you approach your job, the same way yo approach this forum…SMH.. poor kids.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “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. “
Most experienced editors DON’T have this thought process. It’s part of the reason there might be resistance, by many editors who prefer Avid, FCP7, Premiere Pro, etc, in switching to FCPX. Muscle memory takes care of the mechanics, so they are free to cut as creatively as they like with their preferred tool. And they have the happy clients and directors to show for it.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Michael Hancock] “Perhaps I’m just reading your posts wrong, but they come across as very condescending and dismissive most of the time, and I feel like it limits what could otherwise be a interesting and honest conversation about FCPX and it’s strengths and weaknesses, particularly in regards to the design choices Apple has made and whether they are an improvement over the classic NLE design, given different workflows.”
Having been relentlessly accused of the same thing (being condescending) for years here, I’ll just note that some of it might be the disconnect between the actual experience of some of us as “early adopters” – who saw a whole lot to like in the X approach, but had to undergo months and months and months of relentlessly having our experience, viewpoints and actual professional competency questioned. Relentlessly.
What I often thought I was doing was reacting to the constant onslaught of mis-information about X from people who very often actually didn’t really understand the program very well.
Sometimes, I’m sure I projected that onto people who DID know what they were arguing about. But when you’re house has been under constant attack for a long time, it’s unreasonable to expect the homeowner to keep answering the door with an automatic smile. Even when it’s just a brand new postman introducing him or herself.
So if you weren’t here for the first few years, my advice is to ignore the tone and look for the actual arguments lurking beneath.
Those who didn’t have strong opinions and the personalities to stand by and argue them (often relentlessly!) are long gone now. Whats left are perhaps the scarred battlers with enough “quick twitch” muscles to have survived.
So don’t be surprised if we occasionally jump.
It’s what we do. ; )
FWIW.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Neil Goodman] “Sometimes I have a really hard time believing your a teacher. If you approach your job, the same way yo approach this forum…SMH.. poor kids.”
Well, that’s kinda rude.
Maybe, it’s just what Robin does HERE.
In a place where we’ve been arguing in EXACTLY this way for more than 5 years.
Perhaps the way he approaches his job is no different than someone who stands in a classroom for hours doing a great job – then heads for the Pizza joint and sings Opera for a few hours each night.
Different personalities being displayed in different circumstances. What a concept.
Personally, I see this as the one place I simply don’t have the right to be annoyed by others behavior, because participation is completely optional. Being challenged, is the CENTRAL mode here. If you don’t like having your pre-conceptions challenged – to be pushed at – it’s a bad place to hang.
Just another potential way to see things.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up