-
GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
-
[Bill Davis] ” That might be an example of X automating editorial functions without the need for user intervention, perhaps.”
Bill,
You can trim blind to audio using Premiere Pro. (The A/V track separator can be dragged to hide audio).
You may well be able to do this in Avid and others as well (not currently using them so I can’t check).
So on the face of it, the example you’ve given is another way of emphasizing how NLEs keep relationships in general.
Now it might be true that complex trimming selections can’t be done in PPro without seeing audio – you’d have to ask someone that uses the trimming tools in a more traditional way than I. But I think that this points more towards what Walter is talking about.
On that note, with further reflection, I think auditions and (maybe) secondaries are examples of the kinds of relationships that can be preserved in FCPX that would be difficult to do in other NLEs. I’m interested to see what Walter comes up with, and I’ll have more to say then.
Franz.
-
I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles -
[Bill Davis] ”
And Shane popped in with his hair on fire to rag on him for being clueless. “Well, he did say a lot of things about other NLEs that made no sense…assumptions that were wrong. Or, at least very poorly stated. He cleared things up on the comments in the column. But yes, he wasn’t clear. And sorry, but one big issue I have with people criticizing any NLE (including FCX, that I do defend, believe it or not) is when they falsely describe how that NLE works…or make mis-statements about how editing works.
As I said, I DID NOT have any issues with the rest of the article…all the points he made about FCX were right, spot on. But the initial statements about editing were stated wrong. And I think most people agree with me on that.
[Bill Davis] With an eye to where any “ragging” arose. “Praise for FCP X in the forum ABOUT FCP X is still the emotional trigger it’s always been.”
Wrong. I didn’t rag on FCX at all. NOT ONE BIT. Point out where I rag on FCX…go ahead. I pointed out that his assumptions about other NLEs and how they worked was wrong. THAT’S IT.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Bill Davis] “Praise for FCP X in the forum ABOUT FCP X is still the emotional trigger it’s always been.”
Good grief Bill those windmills must be HUGE in your mind, Shane was criticising the frankly incorrect description of track based editing that the author chose to lead off his whole piece with, nothing to do with FCPX at all, he actually praised the rest of the article.
\”Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines\” W.Soyka
-
It’s amazing how differently we all see things, but is it any coincidence your same post on Reddit got pretty much the exact same response with the very similar comments?
-
Edit..nobody in this thread ragged on fcpx, quite the opposite really.
-
Where is that Reddit post? Just curious…
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
R editors
-
-
[Bill Davis] “Go back and review just the first dozen posts in this thread. With an eye to where any “ragging” arose.”
Bill,
I have done so. The first dozen. I can only find the following that could possibly be construed as “ragging”:
[Shane Ross] “WRONG.”
[Shane Ross] “that’s a BS statement.”
[Shane Ross] ” those opening statements are just complete BS.”
[Shane Ross] ” I said his opening arguments were pure BS”
[Bill Davis] ” You might be astonished at just how many working editors have absolutely no clue about any of this stuff. … their thinking and education STOPPED.
[Shane Ross] ” the opening of the article is just poop.”
It’s probably important to note that in his first post, Shane also said this:
[Shane Ross] “There is a lot right about the the timeline, like no collisions and keeping storylines connected, I’ll give him that. And I know that the magnetic timeline is AMAZING for many MANY people. I get that, I’m not knocking that. It’s useful, it’s great, I know that. But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks…but just because someone doesn’t like them or see the point to them doesn’t mean they are useless, or a hinderance.”So: “right”, “AMAZING”, “I’m not knocking that”, “useful”, “great” in addition to qualifying his label of “BS” as “wrong and misleading statements”.
I suppose if we consider “BS” to be harsh language, we can construe this as “ragging”. Is this what you are objecting to? If not, then what?
I also found one instance of trollish behaviour:
[Bill Davis] “Shane, calm down.”
Franz.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up