How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?

[Herb Sevush]

[David Lawrence] ” It’s better design and far easier to offer choice and let the user decide.”

Can I hear an Amen brother?

(in unison) Amen!!!

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[David Roth weiss]

[Bill Davis] “He’s obviously wise enough not to have taken one look at it – said “it’s too different” – and wrote it off as “a massive mistake” at first blush.
“

There you go again Bill, your POV about FCPX is the only one that’s correct and the only one that’s well-conceived – anyone who disagrees with you had to have jumped to a false conclusion “at first blush.”

The reality is, those who dismissed X at first blush are already gone.

So, get over it Bill, accept the fact that FCPX may be perfect for you, but it’s still not perfect for everyone.

[Misha Aranyshev]

Does it read numbers on the slate in the picture take and the announcement in the sound take? Does it match the frame in the picture take to the clap in the sound take?

[Craig Seeman]

FCP legacy didn’t give me the option to go with one Viewer (not did Avid except with Express I believe).
I don’t recall FCP legacy allowing me to completely hide tracks either.

[Herb Sevush]

[Craig Seeman] “FCP legacy didn’t give me the option to go with one Viewer “

What are you talking about. Just hit the minimize button on the source viewer and it goes away. Why you would want to is a different question.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Michael Gissing]

[Lance Bachelder] “What are you using OMF’s for?”

[Simon] If this is addressed to me, I was using OMF as a minimum requirement. Yes, AAF is more fully functional and in fact AVID now only supports AAF for export from MC.

OK as a sound post pro with the latest Fairlight I can set the record straight. AAF costs $500 to license. So Fairlight opted to allow the user to license AAF if they want to use it. I can’t see a single reason to pay a license for AAF.

I want only one thing from an edit to start sound post. Clips with handles on tracks. None of the mixing, clip EQ, dynamic levels. So OMF delivers this in a reliable robust way. I have to take files from all edit platforms and I choose OMF over AAF because it is robust and cross platform and cross NLE reliable. It took a long time for that to happen and ironically both OMF and EDLs became default standards because they are legacy and no-one fiddles with them.

Don’t want embedded video either, although that was always available in OMF. And Simon the trick to forcing AVID to export an OMF is to copy the sequence, delete the video, change the setting to standard def and the OMF export option magically appears. They may have taken it out of MC6 but as far as I know all other versions can be cheated this way.

[Craig Seeman]

[Herb Sevush] “What are you talking about. Just hit the minimize button on the source viewer and it goes away. “

Not the same thing. FCPX Viewer changes dynamically between Source and Record. FCP legacy didn’t give me that option.

[Herb Sevush]

[Craig Seeman] “Not the same thing. FCPX Viewer changes dynamically between Source and Record. FCP legacy didn’t give me that option.”

Are we back to playing ridiculous word games. Legacy also doesn’t give me the option to communicate with Mars, so what –

X refuses to give you options that are possible, Legacy gave you every option it could give you – you are correct that it couldn’t give you an option for something it couldn’t do at all.

The difference between the 2 is enormous.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Craig Seeman]

I believe FCPX will eventual have a contextual option. The Mutlicam function is an example. You’ll get two windows when you perform a task that requires two windows. FCP7 had not such variation. You got two whether you liked it or not.

In FCP7 if you had a bunch of tracks with video at one point in time and many minutes later you were just had video in track 1 and track 10 you had a lot of empty space. That would be compounded if Track 10’s Video clip was tied to audio on their complimentary tracks although way down. It was a vertically inefficient. FCPX shows me what I need above/below at that moment in time. I can have 10 layers at one point and two at another and not have a lot of dead space.

[Herb Sevush]

[Craig Seeman] ” You’ll get two windows when you perform a task that requires two windows.”

Who determines which task needs 2 windows, me or an Apple programmer who’s never edited a show in his life?

[Craig Seeman] ” I can have 10 layers at one point and two at another and not have a lot of dead space.”

All you have created is worthless emptiness (sounds like a novel by Camus). The dead space still exists because you are locked into the geometry of the monitor. What exactly appears in this now “un-dead” space – zombies or icon’s of Steve Jobs?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf