-
How exactly has FCX improved or expedited your workflow?
-
For certain effects and transitions, FCP X has hit the spot. Many of the plug-ins have great templates making it easy to get running. FCP 7’s still great, though, for building a long story.
-
[Jeff Kay] “This is reason behind the thread as I even if I do not personally have access to it, I would like to be more familiar with how FCX works and what it can offer.
“I’m not entirely sure that with X, external familiarity with “how it works and what it can offer”, does a very good job of helping most editors understand the totality of it.
We all understand new things in the CONTEXT of the things we already know.
That’s the huge traditional problem with X for the uninitiated. Those who are most tied to “see” editing in terms of the traditional language of past timeline operations seem to have the largest problem “seeing’ how X solves both traditional and new industry problems in new ways.
My own understanding of X has been a long string of “This is new – what can I do with it? (then later) Oh, now I get it. I used to do this set of tasks another way, now it’s easier to do them THIS way.” That thinking is easy to conceptually understand, but what’s NOT easy is to come at it from a structured comparison view where you look at how TASK A was done in the past – and ask how TASK A is now done via X.
The point is that you might not even NEED to do Task A in X any more. Or you might. And it might work the same way, or VERY differently. But by focusing on your own personal list of Task A’s, you will never reveal the structure of the program. Because you get stuck on functional operations, rather than start to “see” the entire flow of how the entire process of video construction gets done in the new system.
I’m going to get trashed again for espousing it, (It’s OK, I’m used to it) but X is not about the THINGS it does or even the way it does any one thing. It’s about how the entire system works cohesively to change an editors perspective about what’s possible for an editing system to address. Some of that is about the editing keystrokes, some of that is about front end organization and database, and some of it is about connected export into the modern streams of digital distribution.
But the entirety sums up to a whole new workflow. And so trying to help someone who’s never worked with a new thing to frame it in terms of their existing list of Task A’s lifted from the older thing, is a long and difficult struggle.
A lot of people are starting to say “database great” – “metadata handling great” – “agile sharing great” – BUT I still can’t edit with it — because it’s too unfamiliar. And they’re correct. It makes no sense to try to edit the traditional way with the new system. And so we see a lot of failure in the group that tries to do that.
The problem is that none of that great stuff in X can BE great unless the timeline and everything else in the system is connected to, and built to work with, the new enhanced system. It’s only when you understand how that whole SYSTEM works – that you start to see the (still young and developing) power of the whole.
X is kind of an all or nothing deal. You can slap a database on another editing system, but unless you plumb it throughout the entire fabric of the software, you will NOT get the same results as Apple did in X.
It’s what made the iPod such a hit. not ONE aspect, but the sum of all the parts. The simple interface, the size and capacity, the links to the ITMS, the aesthetic design. and yes, even the perception of cool with the white earbuds making it a “safer” choice for others who saw people using them. But at the heart, the THING ITSELF had to work and work very well. It had to satisfy users.
That’s the ultimate test.
And quite a lot of us believe that it will pass that fundamental test with flying colors in the years to come, because it’s made us more productive and made our editing work much, much easier.
Which is the final test of any tool in the long run.
My musings, anyway.
FWIW.
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.
-
From my observation where I teach (grad school for advertising), the best editing experience to have when learning X is none. We switched our lab over to X this year (20 seats) and I have been amazed at how quickly novice (read: no experience) are up and running on the software. WAY faster and with less problems than FCP7. I popped in the lab the other day as a student wanted me to look at his work. First thing I noticed was he had the music track on the top of everything else. My immediate thought was “well, this is really wrong” but corrected myself by thinking that it was absolutely right from his “experience” on X. He never knew about tracks and such so throwing the music track above the video track was completely natural for him. And its totally correct…for him. Apple has got something very right with this software and the thought process behind it.
As I transition my professional work for clients to X, I am constantly reminding myself to stop trying to make X work like FCP7 and just work how the product was designed (I still put audio below video, however). More and more, I am hitting those times where the I am working the way X is supposed to work (at least I THINK I am), and it is a very fun process.
My humble opine, of course….
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
Come to think of it why is audio always below the video…who decided that is they way it should be?
Good point
-
Out of interest in what way is the old Match Frame inferior to the new Reveal in Event Browser?
-
[James Ewart] “Out of interest in what way is the old Match Frame inferior to the new Reveal in Event Browser?”
I’m not sure if the match frame question is directed at me, but don’t you mean this the other way around? In any case, with FCP X you can only match frame to the source. There is no reverse match frame from the source to the timeline. If you are working within a keyword collection and then match frame, it takes you out to the full event, rather than stay within the keyword collection. A match frame matches to the selection in the timeline (using in-out range) from the clip as edited. The playhead is parked on the matching frame, but doesn’t automatically place in in-point there.
The Final Cat Pro plug-in “Reveal Selection” actually does a little better job of this.
https://finalcatpro.com/collections/all
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Something I didn’t think I’d use, but which I find myself using a lot is Motion templates for text and effects. It’s so easy to customize and have parameters available in FCP X for modifications. Instead of doing graphics in AE, I’m now doing more and more in Motion because I can recycle them with new content later down the road.
-
Hi Oliver,
Thanks I was only asking because I have not found it to be much different in the way that I work, which, in all probability is much less complex than the kind of work a lot of you do.
Kind regards
James
-
[James Ewart] “because I have not found it to be much different in the way that I work”
I understand. I find the current method workable, although on large projects, I frequently try to match frame and it just bonks an error alert and does nothing. Other times it’s fine. No rhyme or reason why. Other than that, it functions adequately for most needs.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I find the current method workable, although on large projects, I frequently try to match frame and it just bonks an error alert and does nothing. “
I think, and I could be wrong, that if you have a range selected, it will bonk. You have to deselect a range, select a whole clip (so it’s a clean bounding box, and not a ‘range’ bounding box with the little handles on the left and right side), and then fcpx will match frame to the Browser. Even if the whole clip is selected, but it’s a range selection, it will bonk. That’s how it works for me, anyway.
My guess fcpx won’t match frame the range because of the current PIOP implementation. If you match framed a range, it would destroy any earlier PIOP you made on that same range (like Final Cat Pro does).
This area certainly needs some more refining. PIOPs have too much power.
PIOP = Persistent In and Out Point, for those that weren’t privy to those discussions.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up