-
FCP X – steady as she goes.
-
[andy patterson] “I am hip but as far as I know you don’t have the drawing tools and inner and out strokes as well as beveled edges. If FCPX can do all that could you please to a demonstration video? I would appreciate it.
“Please don’t – we’ve done this one already.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Cherry picking instances where one NLE is slightly faster than another is pointless. If you need to be in the optimum efficient NLE for every single aspect of your work then I suggest you get comfortable using 8-10 different NLEs on every project. The question is can you efficiently get all of your work done in the ecosystem of a given NLE – if the answer is yes, then it doesn’t matter if that ecosystem uses plug-ins or dynamic links or any other way to connect the various tools you need to complete your work.”
Unless, of course, you want to be pedantic about it 🙂
-
[Oliver Peters] “Here is how role-based mixing currently works:”
Thanks Oliver. I see the work around by making compounds of compound clips to apply an effect to what effectively is a stem. Seems very ugly and is certainly not fast, flexible and powerful as proper busing. It seems the mentality is that everything has to be a clip or a clip within a clip within a clip. It is a bit more advanced than Legend’s nesting but it doesn’t do what I was asking.
If I did a flow chart of my usual 5.1 broadcast mixer you would see that the compounding approach has immediate limitations on creating stems with effects but no dips plus fold down stereo stems with different FX and no dips plus a 5.1 and stereo mix which can all be routed to tracks as inputs to be able to record them. And once recorded to be able to punch in and out on the fly when any changes are made.
That’s what will be on offer when Fairlight is fully integrated into Resolve. Most editors will not even realise the power and elegance of this style of signal routing and track & bus based effects plus automation. X is probably good enough, like Pr & Avid for editing and certain levels of finishing.
-
[Michael Gissing] “I see the work around by making compounds of compound clips to apply an effect to what effectively is a stem. Seems very ugly and is certainly not fast, flexible and powerful as proper busing”
I don’t disagree at all. Just that it’s more versatile than would appear at first glance. Unfortunately there are points where effects can override other effects. Plus you can’t make changes inside a compound and hear the final processed output. So it is busing, but really only one level deep. Hence the request for Apple to do more with this toolset.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Steve Connor] “[andy patterson] ” I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it’s own.”
It does, it only seems to be you criticising it on here
“Some people don’t know any better. Having said that I will be doing some FCPX and Motion videos soon.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Although we are probably saying the same thing. “
I think we are – at least a bit.
The way I conceptialize it – when they did the “clean slate” tear down from Legacy to X – they had the chance to change the entire audio plumbing. They also had lots and lots of high quality programming modules available with Core Audio calls and Apples Logic code to deploy so they didn’t have to custom create everything.
They also maybe had permission to jettison skeumorpgic “shorthand” ideas like just tossing something That looks like a virtual 8 bus Mackie on screen – even tho that would have been super easy and super popular with the traditionalists.
I prefer to imagine they decided to figure out what audio MIGHT look like in a magnetic and non-track construct – get the virtual wiring and patching imagined first (the signal flow) and THEN figure out how to provide the user with ways to control things.
It might someday be a mixe-rish gizmo. But it also might not. It might be a host of mini mixers you can put where needed. Or a metadata defined patching and level controlling “something” I can’t yet conceive – kinda like I didn’t see Roles coming before it arrived.
All I know is all along the X development path, even if they’ve added things I was familiar with (I.e Multicam) – they managed to improve the basic idea and implement it in a way to provide both outstanding performance and utility.
My patience has been well rewarded to this point. So I have LOTS of incentive to look forward to whatever comes next.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Herb Sevush] “Cherry picking instances where one NLE is slightly faster than another is pointless. “
It depends on how often you use the said feature.
[Herb Sevush] “If you need to be in the optimum efficient NLE for every single aspect of your work then I suggest you get comfortable using 8-10 different NLEs on every project. “
I am simply stating FCPX could be more efficient. Adobe just revamped Adobe’s titling system. I don’t think it was all that great but Adobe thinks titles are important. So should Apple.
[Herb Sevush] “The question is can you efficiently get all of your work done in the ecosystem of a given NLE – if the answer is yes, then it doesn’t matter if that ecosystem uses plug-ins or dynamic links or any other way to connect the various tools you need to complete your work.”
I agree but FCPX is not as efficient as it can be. I will be posting some videos soon. Keep in mind my response was for a Bill. I don’t think the FCPX/Motion thing is all that great. I know FCPX users think it is but it can make things more complicated than they need to be.
-
I would also add, that from a DAW perspective, it’s also missing the hardware roundtripping available in ProTools, Logic, etc. There you can send a signal out to a physical processing device and reintroduce that effected signal back into the mix, for a real time combination of software and hardware processing. I’m sure the FCPX users don’t care, but for pro audio mix engineers, it’s an important feature.
Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “I would also add, that from a DAW perspective, it’s also missing the hardware roundtripping available in ProTools, Logic, etc. “
The hardware issue is significant from another point of view too. Using my AVID Artist Mix control surface, I can mix with ProTools, Logic and Premiere, but not with FCP X.
https://www.avid.com/products/artist-mix
The benefits of hardware faders are no to be underestimated. Just as with a control surface for grading, you can work so much quicker and produce better results much more easily.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Simon Ubsdell]”The benefits of hardware faders are no to be underestimated. Just as with a control surface for grading, you can work so much quicker and produce better results much more easily.”
Sometimes it is hard to beat the old school. Mixing with real faders as opposed to mouse moves is such a no brainer. Ancient paradigms can often be vastly better than cheap new thinking. I’ve always been a fan of dedicated ergonomic hardware. Anyone who values efficiency, accuracy and real speed knows that no ASCII keyboard with mouse or pen/tablet interface can beat it.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up