-
FCP X vs MC pricing
-
So IF the Sync clips retained Original TC, then that would be fine? If so, we’re a bug-fix way from making that point moot.
As a side note- because I agree that the Sync clips SHOULD contain original video timecode, but,
You’re making Multicam clips sound more complicated and awkward than they are. There’s technically very little difference between a Sync clip and a multi-cam clip except that a multi-cam clip can technically sync more than 2 original media files. Other than that I don’t think they’re any more processor intensive. Mo More difficult to create. No more difficult to use. And the tiny symbol in the corner is different.
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Bill Davis] “But orienting around actual timecode locations seems to be something I rarely do now that I’m fluent in X”
There is value in sorting by TC.”
Ah, Yes.
But in “database view” in the Event Browser – and in the timeline index as well – that’s all there in X.
It’s not that X isn’t tracking and managing whatever timecode is fossilized into the stream of metadata, it’s just that it’s offloaded much of the functions of searching and sorting into the keyword system. So once you learn that if you want to store and seek and sort something in X, it’s better to make it a part of your keyword system – because that usually yields huge benefits in other areas of the software – rather than just concentrating on timecode as the single “search touchstone” of a workflow.
It’s just an alternate way of thinking. Not better or worse. But it’s hard to argue that using keywords over timecode isn’t miles more understandable, sharable and simply “overt” than shuffling massive strings of numbers.
Particularly when you can GET to the timecode in most (granted not all) instances where you might need it.
X is NOT as timecode centric as prior edit systems. And if all your conditioning is in TC manipulation, then X will be harder to get comfortable with – at least until you migrate your search and sort thinking into the new keyword system.
It’s definitely a “change point” in X from the old way of looking at navigation. No doubt about that.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Oliver,
You must have had a slow work day and so you decided to stir up the hornet’s nest with this
heretical observation!Bill,
Are you F***KNG kidding me???
TC reference is the lifeblood of many workflows… especially in Reality TV. Having a time of day reference on multi cameras over months of shooting is critical to being able to find anything… ever! Ignoring this
fact because its not part of your world doesn’t mean that it’s NOT a mission critical feature for many NLE users. Overlooking this fact because it doesn’t meet your “the future is here” thesis of FCP= X challenges the credibility of the rest of your evangelizing.If you’re trying to bring in converts to the cause, you’re NOT going to do it by making statements like that.
Mark
-
[Marcus Moore] “So IF the Sync clips retained Original TC, then that would be fine? If so, we’re a bug-fix way from making that point moot.”
Theoretically, yes.
[Marcus Moore] “You’re making Multicam clips sound more complicated and awkward than they are.”
All unnecessary extra steps affect workflow. There may be down-the-line issues with multicam clips. For example, in sending to grading apps. Not sure of the impact there. I understand what you are saying, but IMHO it’s using a screwdriver to drive a nail.
The original point is simply that it’s a built-in function in MC that was specifically copied (and possibly bettered) by Philip and Greg because there was a valid need and customer demand in the FCP world for it.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Mark Raudonis] “You must have had a slow work day and so you decided to stir up the hornet’s nest with this
heretical observation!”LOL! Of course, of all the things on that list, the argument digresses to TC 😉 That’s funny.
Actually I’m in the middle of doing a Resolve 10 session.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “[Marcus Moore] “I’m sorry Oliver, I don’t get what you mean here”
I need to be able to see and sort by TC, so that when I search by TC or my client refers to TC I can go to it in the browser.”
But Oliver,
Since in X you can sort the Timeline Index by TC. And you can sort the Event Browser in database view by TC. I’m not sure why this is such a burden. Seems to me that you can find any particular TC point pretty darn quick using the tools already in X.
But maybe I’m missing something here.
Clearly you’re frustrated and don’t find the way it works in X to be as simple or direct as it was in Legacy or AVID.
But that’s always going to be true when you compare two systems that work differently.
The big question is can you get where you need to go in both – and what are the overall benefits and challenges of using each. And while X certainly has challenges – it undeniably has massive benefits as well – and so I’m not sure that the critique on pricing that you’ve started this thread to examine is gaining much traction.
To me, it’s just saying “hey, if you want to make X today work more like your AVID system of yesterday – you have to buy add-ons.”
But if you don’t – you don’t. And I expect that by far the largest audience for X kinda doesn’t.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “And you can sort the Event Browser in database view by TC. “
The TC of the source clip as a Sync Clip is 0 in the browser. NOT the ACTUAL TC of the camera clip. This is why I’m using Sync-N-LinK-X instead of Sync Clips in the first place.
[Bill Davis] “Seems to me that you can find any particular TC point pretty darn quick using the tools already in X. “
So when you sort by TC and have 2,000 clips that all start with 0, how do you find it by TC? Not to mention that the client/producer has reviewed footage from the shoot dailies, prior to synching and his reference is source TC from the camera.
[Bill Davis] “Clearly you’re frustrated and don’t find the way it works in X to be as simple or direct as it was in Legacy or AVID.”
I’m not frustrated at all. The solution exists, but not within X. I’m simply pointing out that the solution that is required is a paid add-on, which exists within the purchase price of MC. It’s simply a comparison.
[Bill Davis] “it undeniably has massive benefits as well”
My point was never about benefits as I stated upstream in this thread. It’s simply an observation, because I do believe some sort of threshold has been passed. Of course, that will change when Apple decides to toss X in for free with every Tube sold 😉
[Bill Davis] “And I expect that by far the largest audience for X kinda doesn’t.”
I suspect that’s not completely true, otherwise there would be no market for these add-ons. But heck, you don’t need timecode for cat videos on YouTube 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
AH…Sync N’ Link X must be different than the FCP 7 version.
And Avid FX confuse me, so I don’t go there.
OK…I’ve been put in my place nicely.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Shane Ross] “OK…I’ve been put in my place nicely.”
Definitely not my intension.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Mark Raudonis] “Are you F***KNG kidding me???”
No, I’m not.
[Mark Raudonis] “TC reference is the lifeblood of many workflows… especially in Reality TV. Having a time of day reference on multi cameras over months of shooting is critical to being able to find anything… ever! Ignoring this
fact because its not part of your world doesn’t mean that it’s NOT a mission critical feature for many NLE users. Overlooking this fact because it doesn’t meet your “the future is here” thesis of FCP= X challenges the credibility of the rest of your evangelizing.If you’re trying to bring in converts to the cause, you’re NOT going to do it by making statements like that. “
Sigh.
You are right. And you’re totally wrong. IMO.
It appears you are upset because a few folks like me will not abide guys like you who have a particular “large user reality show” need – feeling empowered to remonstrate others about the direction of ALL of our industries tools. Well, sorry about that. Yep, I think differently than you do, Mark. Which I feel, on sum, is probably a good thing.
I’m sorry, but guys like me who do NOT sit in shops like yours have a right to effective tools as well. And if our need for traditional timecode display is diminishing (and it is!) and if Apple has recognized that in FCP-X – than deal with it.
IIRC, you publically dumped X because it didn’t enable your type of work. Fine. I can see the reasoning and I don’t have a single quibble with you for switching to another tool that better meets your needs.
But isn’t it kinda of arrogant to turn around and say that YOUR kind of needs are the MOST important ones in the entire editing industry? And that everyone who has different needs is NUTS not to “get” that TC is the glue that holds the entire industry together?
Here’s a tiny news flash. We all DO get that TC was the way that the industry was TRADITIONALLY held together. But there’s a case to be made that in the modern metadata world, Traditional timecode is a less critical and, more important, DIMINISHINGLY USEFUL – tool.
I like you, have worked with TC day in and day out for virtually my entire career. The thing is, I’m now spending less and less and less time dealing with TC since I’ve learned X. Why? Because I can turn out large amounts of effictively editied video in a system that does not REQUIRE everything to be referenced to timecode. X understands and uses, TC when it needs to. But does not REQUIRE It. That’s one reason why its so happy to work with pocket cams and goPros without being all snotty about it. That X can do excellent video processing and keep all TC largely shielded from an editor who doesn’t prefer to deal with it at the moment, is, in a world, FABULOUS.
In YOUR world, you can demand that every camera be writing TC, Heck, you can demand everyone jam sync with their morning orange juice. Which is great for you. But some of us don’t have that luxury – and might even prefer working outside a system of centralized overlord TC control on occasion!
Timecode is not “irrelevant” to editors like me, It’s just not AS relevant as it once was, And possibly, from a mile high industry view – timecode is getting more and more like black burst generators and TBCs. They used to be the hallmark of professional editing. Now new techniques have pretty much supplanting them.
I doubt TC will ever go away (nor should it), because I understand the importance of absolute frame referencing – but I have absolutely NO DOUBT that overt timecode processing will continue to do exactly what FCP-X is doing with it today – which is managing it in the background and allowing the user to determine whether or not it’s important to make it visible to a particular editors workflow.
Every time X (or PluralEyes for that matter) syncs stuff via audio waveform – timecode is a step closer to being marginalized. Same result, no need to overtly deal with matching TC streams via numbers.
And under the hood of X, I suspect that a TON more of it’s video manipulation is being done by metadata reference that has NO recognizable timecode in it’s construction at all. If I understand it correctly, X is nearly always referencing deep machine code – not something as “functionally dumb” as SMPTE timecode.
The truth is that TC is a very, very weak expression of position, designed for human eyes and human scratch pad math. It was a comfortable way to denote a frame for an editor who could get by with only rudimentary tools for position based information – you know, back when broadcast video (your field!) was the ONLY type of video there was?
In the modern digital world there are lots of circumstances where timecode is increasingly inadequate for many tasks we do regularly – sub-sample synced audio editing being a notable example. (mixing multiKhz samples into a very gross 30 frame limited system is a kind of a huge pain, no?)
I honor timecode and it’s historic contributions to our industry. And I have depended on it for nearly three decades in my work. But if you can’t see it’s role changing, I don’t know what I can say to you.
As modern software like X is showing us, there may be some BETTER ways to do the same tasks.
In sum, If I can get the same video out of a system without all the rapidly flashing “crutch numbers” – I’m good with that.
Particularly if the TC steam is still there for the times when I do need to edit that way.
With luck we’ll continue to both get what we need.
And, nope, I am not “FUC**ING kidding you???” in any way, shape or form.
I’m offering a alternate view of the same facts. With my reasoning behind that view.
And I think your “holy shit, are you that dumb” invective is actually built largely on still effective, but fading, thinking. We’ll obviously see which view turns out to be closer to the way things are done in the future.
: )
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up