-
How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?
-
[Craig Seeman] “Third party development allows for competitive alternatives to perform a function.”
I very much doubt that at this micro economic level the wonders of the free market actually operate the way you are suggesting.
Intelligent Assistance for example stated at the time they brought out Xto7 that they were holding off from developing the 7toX translator because they had got wind that someone else was doing it.
Obviously this has since changed but the point still holds.
What small operator (and that’s what we’re talking about here) is going to devote scarce resources to developing products that may or may not have competitors stealing their tiny market share?
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
I have no problem with that. Given Apple’s methodology with this I suspect it will be contextual though rather than always on. Of course we know many editors want always on though. Personally I’m not wedded to always on. There are times when I need it.
-
well, first of all we have a viewer in certain situations when you need them. but i do not miss it all the time since in FCP7 is indeed was “stuck on the last bin-frame” for extended times when editing in the timeline alone. The screens get busy enough enough without the viewer when you have event/bins, clips, scopes, canvas and inspector open.
audio tracks can be made by secondary storylines. if we needed something, then we needed an audio-bus that shows me in the project where the certain roles go to in the audio file before i enter the export window.
-
[Rafael Amador] “We’ve been waiting 10 years for a decent de-intelacer in FC, 10 years for a decent built in up/downscaling option. FCP has gone to the grave with lots of transitions and effects still working in 8b RGB.”
10 years and FCP legacy never approached the capability of trimming in Avid. FCPX is much closer although it still needs some work. 10 years of relying on plugins and apps for decent chroma keying and FCPX chroma keying as of 10.0.3 may be the best built in keyer for a general purpose NLE.
I have no issue depending on third party products and I suspect Apple will be integrating quite a bit as time goes on. Others may not be worth it as time goes on. The need for some things decline over time.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Given Apple’s methodology with this I suspect it will be contextual though rather than always on. “
That’s one of my big conceptual problems with X, the idea that the programmers understand the context better than the editor. If the editor wants it to be always on, he should have that option – it’s not up to someone else to determine what’s best for any given editor. The multi-cam viewer demonstrates they can give that option, now it remains to be seen if they will.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Bill Davis] “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.”
That’s your point of view Bill. I have one too, and so do others.
Perhaps some day you’ll learn to accept the fact that your POV is neither shared by everyone, nor is it the only correct POV.
-
[Richard Herd] “How did folks use it?”
Synced to the timeline in Gang mode it is essential for jobs like described in this post: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/4790
Synced to the timeline in Open mode when I need to adjust effects. Lets say the project doesn’t require or can’t afford real grading, just a touch up with 3-way Color Corrector. Select all video on the timeline, apply 3-way CC, enable Open, switch to 3-way CC control tab, adjust and downarrow through you cut.
Synced to the timeline in Open mode when I need to trim audio, especially ADR.
For match frame and replace (the real one, not FCPX flavor)
For syncing production sound to picture dailies
-
I’d say (B) but more than anything I agree with Herb, we should let the editor decide. The problem with Apple’s approach to X right now is they think they know how you should work better than you. Maybe Apple is planning on putting in an option to use a Viewer but they didn’t want to release the program that way because nobody would give the single viewer a chance and they really want people working that way. However, now that a lot of people have adopted the single viewer style of editing Apple can now, potentially, put in an option to turn on the Viewer and still retain a lot of users who’ve accepting their new editing paradigm.
Or, who knows… most likely it’s their way or the highway.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Perhaps some day you’ll learn to accept the fact that your POV is neither shared by everyone, nor is it the only correct POV.
“David, I understand that perfectly well. But thanks for the reminder, I guess.
I have ONE view. Mine. Only time and the market will demonstrate whether my view is more or less accurate than yours. (or anyone else’s, for that matter.)
Actually, my view is pretty simple. Virtually everything I’ve written here is based on a single idea. Don’t pigeon-hole FCP-X as “broken” or “dumbed down” or “inadequate”) Particularly don’t do that if you can’t even demonstrate understanding of how it actually operates. If you can show that, I’ll listen to you. Some of my favorite exchanges here are those I have with Walter S, who pushes back at me all the time, but based on real arguments in intent, not knee-jerk “it’s different and that alone makes me angry” stuff.
It’s clear to all here that you’ve been pretty relentlessly negative about FCP-X as an approach to editing.
Fine. I just think your assessment is narrow and fundamentally flawed by your pre-conceptions. ((as are mine, I’ll freely admit.)
We’re now seeing a development path that shows pretty clearly that Apple is developing X as a fully professional editing tool.
Which partially belies you’re your consistently tonal contention that it’s incapable, ill-conceived, or somehow so deeply flawed as to make it unfit for professional use and that everyone must flee to one of the A’s in order to remain “professional.”
I’ve thought from day one that thinking like that was basically wrong. And this week, the tide has shifted more, IMO, to turn away from your view and a bit more toward mine.
That does not make me “right” and you “wrong” – because as I try to relentlessly acknowledge, different editors need different things.
I’m comfortable that if anyone looks back at these threads in a few years to see the POV of the participants – my view of “give it a chance, it’s pretty amazing in design and operation – and it looks like it might be OUTSTANDING for many common editing tasks” will look to have been largely reasonable.
And the “it’s a deeply broken toy capable of nothing worthy” view to have been short-sighted and rather foolish.
Period.
“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
-
What are you using OMF’s for? OMF’s and EDLs are very old legacy stuff. Avid is encouraging .AAF’s for MC to Pro Tools which is a more robust file which can also include video. I know there are a lot of sound guys out there with old gear because they don’t want to update their plug-ins etc. but cry me a river…
I would love to see useable .AAF import/export from FCPX or a 3rd party app that can do both and something costing $499 each way like legacy Auto Duck.
Once you have solid .AAFs you can send them anywhere – to Symphony, Pro Tools, Nuendo, PPro etc.
Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up