-
Has anyone used FCPX to cut a proper documentary for broadcast.
-
by match frame i mean the ability to have a freeze frame in a reference monitor or on the source side, so when dealing with continuity, you can better line things up.
Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production – NBC/Universal
-
Does this help? https://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.0.3/#ver3363b235
-
[Neil Patience] “Whilst you may think this is somehow ‘traditional’ this is what just about every broadcast documentary has to go through.”
Oh I know all too well Neil, and I wasn’t implying any criticism of the workflow. It’s exactly what I’d do (minus laying back audio on the master in one run – as I said the dubbing mixer has always done that in most instances I’ve used one). I was using ‘traditional’ in the sense of our well trod paradigm in the broadcast world – and I totally agree, FCPX has thrown too many of these out for me to be truly comfortable. What’s frustrating is that it would only take a few additions (as others have pointed out, match framing etc) to be truly powerful IMHO.
_________________________________
Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you’ll be a mile away. And have his shoes.*the artist formally known as Jaymags*
-
[Sean Davison] “More than 2 tracks of Video
More than 10 tracks of audio “Isn’t one of the objectives of X to consolidate “tracks” so you use fewer of them.
I seem to remember Apple using that as a selling point.
-
[tony west] “Isn’t one of the objectives of X to consolidate “tracks” so you use fewer of them.
I seem to remember Apple using that as a selling point.”
Here’s what I’ve come to with this Tony – it may have been seen as a selling point, but it certainly isn’t to pros.
I can work with audio in X but it doesn’t remotely compare to sitting at a console with all my channel strips and tracks in front of me in real time (likewise virtually in DP and PT.) Looks like the new PP has just that, for instance.
A selling point would be a simple command to toggle all of that on and off depending on what you’re editing. But not providing the ability is a huge, amateur compromise.
Here we go with an analogy: If I’m flying, I don’t want my pilot’s seemingly dizzying array of controls to be consolidated so that he has to go through a process to get to anything at any time.
They’re dizzying to me because I’m not a pilot.
He’s a pro, he’s trained for years so that all those controls aren’t confusing, but precisely how he flies his plane successfully.
-
[Jim Giberti] “They’re dizzying to me because I’m not a pilot.
He’s a pro, he’s trained for years so that all those controls aren’t confusing, but precisely how he flies his plane successfully.”Especially if he is flying baseball teams around or other analogous cargo. 🙂
Your point is valid. Simplifying something useful, powerful, standardised and easily understood is frustrating to established users when the offered alternative is just different and not necessary.
-
[Michael Gissing] “Simplifying something useful, powerful, standardised and easily understood is frustrating to established users when the offered alternative is just different and not necessary.
“Which is why this is such an ambiguous program that seems like a compromise rather than a vision.
Simplifying things makes sense if you’re trying to learn a complex craft – which quality editing and creative will always be – but it’s antithetical to professionals who understand their craft.
-
OK, I think I got you Jim.
So don’t embed the audio with the video unless you wanted that way?
-
[Richard Herd] “Does this help?”
Slightly different beast. Match frame allows you to sit on a frame in the timeline and “match back” to that frame in the original media in the bin. Makes it quick and easy to go from one line of dialog in the timeline, say, to that character’s next line of dialog in the same take. Many uses, but that’s a quick one that I do all the time.
Chris
-
[Neil Goodman] “No 3 point editing into anything other than the primary = lame”
Well and you are apparently one of those who played 10 minutes with it and then gave up. Of course you can 3-point edit into the primary or as a connected clip.
Yes, there is quite some “mousing over” with skimming , but it beats the double-clicking of FCP7 easily.
There are a few audio-quirks still, but other than that it works great in all productions we do.@Sean: We made a 52-documentary with version 10.0.0 in summer already. In 10.0.3 it would be a lot easier! I did almost everything you ask for: but only 8 tracks audio and export to XDCam MXF instead of tape, but that would have been one more button.
We didn´t survive QC but we aced it! We actually got a call that it was one of the best out-of-house QC of the year! You can imagine we were extra careful, too 😉The only problem we had with 10.0.0 was the OMF export. But we managed and it took not long to export our Audiotracks to FCP7 to fill in the missing export options in that old version.
Overall it beats FCP legacy in speed (media management and of course editing) and color-accuracy (when you not only export for one channel, but deliver parts or versions to different ones in different codecs and media: MPEGs, MXFs, h.264 etc).
In the new version everything is different than in summer. XML works, re-linking works, a lot of the initial bugs are ironed out…it is growing up. It might not be ready for your tape-workflow, but once you moved on FCPX will have moved ahead of you also.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up