How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?

[Mark Morache]

I wouldn’t be pissed or pleased about the audio tracks, but I’ve gotten used to the magnetic timeline, and I don’t mind it. I don’t think it would work with audio tracks.

I want them to figure out a way to let me virtually cross fade audio by applying the fade handle of multiple clips by a specified amound, and extending the audio of the selected clips by half the amount of the fade.

FCP viewer, I don’t find I miss it that much. I guess I’d be pissed if they added it back and didn’t give me a way to turn it off.

———
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can’t stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
https://fcpx.wordpress.com

[Carsten Orlt]

If you do either of those things you’d get FCP8…

I’d be pissed off if Apple would buckle under the perceived pressure of public forums and start making things the way they were. I think the new Multicam shows that they are striving to advance things, even if it might not be obvious from the beginning.

There are 2 NLE’s with viewer and tracks out there. Plenty of choice if you don’t like FCPx.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say ‘shut up and put up’.

I’m just thinking that you might be missing something only because you are used to seeing it, not because you truly need it. It might be easier for you if you have them because that’s what you are used too. But do you really, really need them. If I gain screen real estate for not having something I do not really need, aren’t my benefits higher without them in long run?

just some thought,
Carsten

[Chris Harlan]

B, I suppose.

Tracks would make me happy. The source viewer would be good, but the Montage and Speed Razor were no source viewer or source viewer-lite, so I COULD get used to it. I’m pretty much at a point, though, that it is what it is.

[Bill Davis]

[David Roth Weiss] “If Randy Ubillos and his team at Apple suddenly had a change of heart, and they added both audio tracks and the FCP viewer to FCPX, how many of you would be pissed-off, how many would be pleased?

Please pick one of the answers below:

a) I’d be pissed

b) I’d be pleased

c) I’d rather not say

If you’d like to explain your answer, please do. Next Friday I’ll tally everyone’s responses and we’ll see what the consensus is.
“

Goody, a “push poll.” And one that starts out by framing the program as “inadequate” to the extent that a “change of heart” is a central issue.

No “change of heart” is required, because nothing about X is currently broken.

You and a lot of others just can’t “give up” on what the program once was.

But it’s not that any more. It’s something new, interesting, and rapidly developing.

So sorry, David, but I just don’t accept your premis that having people “vote” on your constrained list of limited choices is at all valuable.

But if others want to participate, rock on.

I’m going to spend my time learning about all the new capabilities baked into 1.0.3.

FWIW,

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Misha Aranyshev]

[Carsten Orlt] “If you do either of those things you’d get FCP8…”

To get to FCP8 besides the tracks and the Viewer they’d need to fix 3-point editing, bring back real replace command and get rid of magnetic timeline. And that’s just the start.

[Shane Ross]

It’s never going to happen…so what’s the point in asking? Just want to see how many people like the new way FCX does things?

Gotta give up the ghost. Apple is going with this editing paradigm….

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def

[David Lawrence]

B

And they wouldn’t even have to be audio tracks.

Just allow for more than one Primary. Let me have as many as I want. Folks who are happy with only one track can keep working as they currently do. Nothing changes. Folks like myself who need more can add them as needed. Use them for audio or video just like now. Connect things to them and create truly meaningful clip relationships rather than being forced into the half-baked notion that everything relates to a single “Primary”.

Something like this would be truly powerful and flexible. Multiple Primaries would rock! I doubt we’ll ever see it.

A source viewer would be nice too. Even though I hear we’re now in a brave new world of “21st century” media, I still like to match eye-lines and spot motion continuity when cutting.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Ben Scott]

not sure if tracks are needed for this, more a form of auto bussing using roles and recording live to a new connected clip or keyframe and fx control track that acts like a track with a role added to it that

suppose what I am suggesting is like using the adjustment track trick (using blank title template to apply filters to clips underneath) for audio instead of visuals

the source window has 2 particular functions which is needed which is ganging to check reference quicktimes or for proper replace edits. these will I imagine appear, however I really doubt the source window as it was will reappear, it isnt needed like people percieve it to.

[Rafael Amador]

David,
Why to try to improve the perfection (the Holly Grail of video editing).?
Why to try to add a preview window so you can see a picture before and after color correction?
Why to make a really customizable GUI with different views up to the need of the editor?
There are people that for what they do this is perfect.
Please don’t bother them trying to make them understand that for the kind of jobs you do this doesn’t works.
There are people that will never understand that all is not about sticking shoots as fast as possible.
Some people are unable to understand that for some others, video editing is like the chess game where you need a board where to see all your pieces at the same time.

For my self the real excitement of the week comes from the FC7 to FCPX translator. That adds to FCP more options for finishing. FCPX has a lot of things that I really love. Being able to skip that senseless magnetic timeline and the paradigmatic jargon would be much appreciated.
With that scope, Multicam and Broadcast are great. Was time; and a matter of survival for FCPX.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Roland Blaser]

My answer is “b” for sure (want the audio tracks back).
For my TV workflow it is much easier to have the old fashioned audio tracks. Gives me a clear presentation of the whole audio stuff like IT, narration track, music, special effects and so on. I’m editing at home but as the final audio mix is done within the TV station, I have to output omf audio with a given track distribution – that’s a professional workflow I’m faced with since the invention of non-linear editing.
Yes, I’m one of those old fashioned guys who would like to have FCP8 instead of FCPX. I’m sure FCPX has some very nice features. However, I need to make money with my editing tool. And I prefer a robust tool over a tool with a lot of gadgets. I’m sure FCP8 could have most of the nice FCPX stuff implemented – but the “old fashioned” way I prefer. New is not always better, sometimes it’s just different. Concerning editing: it’s rather difficult to invent the wheel again and again. Since Apple had the arrogance to tell me what workflow is good for me, I have a pretty different view concerning this company…

********
Science journalist, cameraman, video editor. 30 years of science communication for Swiss National TV. Awarded Prix Media by Swiss Academy of Science. Nominee Descartes Prize for Science Communication European Union.
> Mac Pro 8 core, MacBook Pro. AJA ioHD. FCP 7.