FCP X – steady as she goes.

[Michael Gissing]

[Bill Davis] “The future of the system may hold things like capabilities to do basic database based mixing and effects at a clip level (speculatively) rather than needing to route audio signals through a virtual mixer – as it does with track based systems that still pretty much hold to the traditions borrowed from analog workflows. ”

Subbing to buses then master buses for bus based signal processing is something I have been doing with digital mixing for 25 years. It isn’t an analog workflow but instead an incredibly powerful and necessary tool to deliver the required stems and various mix formats demanded in the world of cinema, broadcast and even the web. Have you seen Netflix’s deliverables?

By assuming X will one day deliver better clip based processing shows you have little idea of how audio signal processing works. Clip based processing has some use but without bus based and multi mix configurations with signal processing to control loudness, compatibility of fold downs etc X is a still a toy in that area. An X mixer with bus based (call it roles if you must) processing and multi routing is minimum requirement. When they do that and how they do that remains to be seen and more importantly heard. Have a look at Fairlight in Resolve when it is fully integrated and the penny might drop.

And what do you mean by ‘database based’ mixing?

[Oliver Peters]

[Michael Gissing] “An X mixer with bus based (call it roles if you must) processing and multi routing is minimum requirement.”

In fairness to Bill, X pretty much does that now. Not as complex as a DAW can get, but Roles in its present state effectively becomes a set of submaster buses. This also enables discrete spilt-track outputs in a relatively simple manner.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Michael Gissing]

[Oliver Peters] “In fairness to Bill, X pretty much does that now.”

Can you apply say an EQ, dynamics and other plugins to a role and then have that role dip up and down as it creates a multi channel output? I’m talking about processing on the sub and final mix here not clip based processing. I thought that control and signal path was what X users keep asking for.

[Steve Connor]

[andy patterson] “and 80% of the canned titles included in FCPX are a tad bit cheesy to say the least.
“

As they are in the new Titler in Premiere Pro

[Oliver Peters]

[Michael Gissing] “Can you apply say an EQ, dynamics and other plugins to a role”

Here is how role-based mixing currently works:

https://www.provideocoalition.com/advanced-mixing-roles-final-cut-pro-10-3/

https://images.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Audio_Roles.pdf

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Andy Patterson]

[Steve Connor] “[andy patterson] “and 80% of the canned titles included in FCPX are a tad bit cheesy to say the least.
”

As they are in the new Titler in Premiere Pro”

With Premiere Pro I can make my own titles, mask and mattes real easy. I can also mimic the canned titles of FCPX super easy. Having said that FCPX is about the same as when I last used it. I will try to post a video soon. Overall FCPX works OK on the Mac Mini for 1920 X 1080 projects.

[Walter Soyka]

[Bill Davis] “The future of the system may hold things like capabilities to do basic database based mixing and effects at a clip level (speculatively) rather than needing to route audio signals through a virtual mixer – as it does with track based systems that still pretty much hold to the traditions borrowed from analog workflows.”

Premiere has a system somewhat similar to this today. Bill, you might be interested in Premiere’s Sound Essentials panel:
https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/using/premiere-essential-sound-panel.html

Sound Essentials is not a replacement for Mr. Gissing any more than the Lumetri panel is a replacement for a colorist, but here’s a quick overview of what it can do. The panel is task-focused. It aims to provide simplified controls for common audio work like unifying volume levels, reducing background noise, improving clarity and enhancing vocals, etc.

You can declare any clip Dialogue, Music, SFX, or Ambience, and perform type-specific tasks on them individually or en masse through the Sound Essentials panel. This includes an “Auto Match” for volume that sounds like your speculative database mixing feature request.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Steve Connor]

[andy patterson] “With Premiere Pro I can make my own titles, mask and mattes real easy.”

I was replying to your comment about the STOCK titles in FCPX.

With Motion I can make my own Titles, masks and mattes real easy too and easily use them in FCPX

[Walter Soyka]

[andy patterson] “The FCPX/Motion connection is a tad bit over-hyped in my opinion.”

I disagree. From a design perspective, I think the possibilities here are usually understated!

Adobe’s new motion graphics template integration between Ae and Pr is a nice feature, but FCPX/Motion goes beyond graphics. You can build custom effects and transitions in Motion to publish to FCPX as well.

We do most of our work in Adobe software, but I pushed several clients’ productions from FCP7 to FCPX a couple years back. Why? Because we could build some robust broadcast graphics packages in Motion for the editors to use in FCPX. We could expose a few parameters to them that they could tweak right in the NLE. We could also easily limit what they could change to stay within our brand standards.

I would encourage you to pick up a license of Motion and dig in before you judge it too harshly.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Andy Patterson]

[Steve Connor] ”
With Motion I can make my own Titles, masks and mattes real easy too and easily use them in FCPX”

Why create a mask, matte or title in Motion and then have to release the parameters to FCPX? Wouldn’t it be great if FCPX could create titles, masks and mattes? Why the need for two programs? Basically what you are saying is it would be better for Adobe to take the titling system out of Premiere Pro and force Premiere Pro users to use After Effects to create simple titles. There are times when After Effects can give you an edge over Premiere Pro’s titling system but both programs need a titling tool.