Help me appreciate FinalCut

[Jim Waterwash]

OK, so I had to put some closure here. The ugly unspoken truth is that this is simply not possible in FCP studio.

Once a project is sent to Soundtrack, it is only the original FCP project that can be worked on from within this Soundtrack project. Further timing edits within FCP will make the original STP project obsolete and useless, being that it is out of sync. Though they tout round tripping in their product descriptions and help docs, subsequent timing changes made to clips within FCP will not be updated within your recently created STP multi-track project.

If you resend your FCP project to a new STP project, all non-destructible edits that you made to your audio are only within the old STP project and so are now lost. The “Send to Soundtrack multi-track Project” is intended as a one time operation and makes an assumption that the video clips within FCP will be frozen.

You can round-trip all you want, you just can’t any longer change your video edits. Your work-flow must accept this constraint if you are to work with FCP and want more sophisticated audio editing abilities such as normalizing and real-time tweaking, both of which are not included in FCP.

This integration constraint was not obvious and I felt a need to spell it out for those considering FCP.

Its not about capturing and its not about learning to work within the program. In my view, this is a basic technological disconnect between sound and video, imposed by FCP, that forces a workflow that restricts spontaneous/creative changes to both sound and video.

I expected “Studio” integration.

Jim

[Boyd Mccollum]

Hi Jim,

I’m glad you decided to post back with your decision, it’s always nice to find out how a story ends, especially on these forums (e.g., did the problem get resolved, which solution worked, etc.)

Just a couple of quick questions/observations:

[Jimwww] “You can round-trip all you want, you just can’t any longer change your video edits. Your work-flow must accept this constraint if you are to work with FCP and want more sophisticated audio editing abilities such as normalizing and real-time tweaking, both of which are not included in FCP.”

FCP audio editing may be basic compared to STP, Logic and Pro Tools, but it can do a lot and can accommodate most workflows. What type of normalizing and real-time tweaking are you talking about? In the vast majority of workflows, audio sweetening is done after picture lock. Before picture lock, FCP allows you to adjust your volumes, do fades, apply filters, apply keyframes to your adjustments and filters, etc. I’d be curious to know how these tools are inadequate in the initial editing phases.

The idea behind waiting for picture lock to do major audio and video image sweetening is: why spend time, energy, money, resources on footage or audio that may or may not actually be in your finished product.

[Jimwww] “This integration constraint was not obvious and I felt a need to spell it out for those considering FCP.

One of the reasons that the integration constraint you mention is not obvious is that it’s arises out of a very unique workflow. As some of my other posts have suggested, I think there are quite a few legitimate workflows out there, tailored to fit a specific style of editing. After all, the beauty of NLEs, and having several high quality NLEs to choose from (Avid, FCP, Premiere, Vegas), is that you can select one that fits what you need to do.

Having said that, one should acknowledge and understand where their specific workflow fits in the continuum. There’s a difference between a constraint that an NLE has with regards to a specific workflow, and whether that constraint is actually a limitation of the NLE itself. In your case, I don’t think it’s a limitation of FCP/STP, rather you have a specific workflow and Vegas does exactly what you need it to do.

[Jimwww] “Its not about capturing and its not about learning to work within the program. In my view, this is a basic technological disconnect between sound and video, imposed by FCP, that forces a workflow that restricts spontaneous/creative changes to both sound and video.”

To a certain degree it is about learning to work within the programs. You need to adapt or change workflows to the way it works and time to get fluent with how it works. FCP is what it is, in the same way Avid, Vegas and Premiere are what they are. It’s quite possible that STP with FCP 6 might have the capabities you need. The designers/software engineers are trying to make the best products they can to give the editor all the tools they need. If the feature set of one NLE doesn’t work for an editor, but another one does, then go with that NLE.

[Jimwww] I expected “Studio” integration.

It’s a bummer that FCP didn’t meet your needs or expectations and that you spent $$ on it to find out. However, I wouldn’t draw the conclusion that it there isn’t “Studio” integration because it lacked one specific feature set that is central to how you edit.

It’s also a bummer that the marketing, buzz and, often times, the sales folks, surrounding a product (whether it’s Apple, Adobe, Avid, Sony, Panasonic, etc.) isn’t nuanced or informative enough to let you know whether that specific product will work for your specific needs.

Regards,

Boyd

[Jim Waterwash]

My major problems with the audio in FCP, is that as soon as I change something, its stops.
I felt so productive in Vegas, being able to edit 5 seconds ahead of the playback, whether it be moving and dropping clips around or tweaking parameters. In Vegas, you can have a section running and add audio effects and change parameters without it stopping. That really freed me to do things that I wouldn’t have done, had it been a big deal. When it comes to normalizing, I can do it anywhere and anytime, I can adjust my workflow for that. In Vegas it was a check box, though not as much control over normalization with that box, as is in Soundtrack.

The other problem is basically that the work-flow forces me to lock the video for audio sweetening. I find that very confining, to not easily make a change that I know should be made, but won’t, without losing the undo-ability (?) of the non-destructible edits. It loses so much of the benefits of non-destructible edits, if you do happen to need to make a change (you are human). I understand now the point about why picture lock happens, so as not to waste time. That does make sense and I’ll sit with that for some time so I can swallow it, but its hard for me to accept a tool that “forces” that work-flow. I also just like to do something different sometimes after I’ve been cutting for hours and maybe I want to work on finding a good EQ for that windy beach shot that I know I want to keep.

I’m sure the next version will offer better integration, but from much of the feedback that I’ve read, most seem content with that locked video and the “stop and tweak”. I suspect as online video distribution gains momentum, there will be more editors looking for quicker and more flexible tools that are geared for a single editor, I’m sure FCP will bend.

At this point, I’m just trying to find some work-flows that may help me take advantage of both systems, being that I’ve invested time and money into both.

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far.
Jim

[Larry Watts]

Hey Jim,

I’d love to compare notes in your dual use of vegas and FCP.
We are currently using only vegas but would like to see how hard it would be to use FCP also or migrate to FCP

Larry

LSW