-
Hypothetical
-
[Mathieu Ghekiere] “Adobe only really pushed with Premiere development when the FCPX debacle broke out.”
Wow…nothing couldn’t be further from the truth.
Adobe moved to 64-bit at the height of FCP’s popularity – so we weren’t investing or ‘pushing’ the product then? A complete re-write that cost millions of dollars? Only Apple can do that? What about GPU innovation? First to have a usable editor for DSLR footage? This is all CS…5 in 2010!
At the end of the day, the market reacted to FCP X by embracing other editors including Premiere Pro which perhaps is a more accurate description.
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and I do wish you all success with your choice of FCP X, but Adobe (or any company for that matter) makes a product with purpose and determination.
Dennis – Adobe guy
-
Hi Dennis,
I didn’t say the first to edit DSRL footage. I also didn’t talk about 64bit. I know Premiere was first. You were also the first with a RAW R3D workflow.
I’m talking about re-imagining the whole editing process (organization of footage, how a timeline works, etc. …) -
XMP metadata support with CS4 in 2008.
Personally, when I was told CS4 would be 64-bit and I could have an HP workstation with as much RAM as it could hold I started shaking my head at what Apple was doing with FCP.
-
[Mathieu Ghekiere] “With FCPX changing a lot of editing paradigms, suddenly you start thinking about all the things that could be better.
“I know everyone here loves the “automobile” comparisons, so here we go.
When Tesla created their “paradigm shifting”, award winning, disruptive version of the car of the future, they still kept the concept of four wheels on the road. They could of gone with a tricycle design (See Aptera), but they kept what worked, and changed everything else.
I’d argue that FCP-X is a tricycle.
mark
-
[Mark Raudonis] “I’d argue that FCP-X is a tricycle. “
I’d argue it’s got two wheels and it’s a Ducati!
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
Based on how much faster I, at least, can edit with it, I’d argue it’s a jet pack.
Best,
John -
[John Godwin] “Based on how much faster I, at least, can edit with it, I’d argue it’s a jet pack.”
hahaha +1 on the jet pack
Someone else mentioned on here the merging of video and audio, I had never thought about it before X
but that alone speeds stuff up for me. For the most part they don’t really need to be separated by default.
The tools in X by themselves don’t seem like a big deal. The skimmer, those little audio fade handles, tagging and others, but together there are just too many goodies in there for me to turn away from.
-
Wow, looking at these timelines, they BOTH look amazingly complex. And in Media Composer and PP it would look just as complex.
Not being snarky here at all, as I just want to understand other editing techniques. Since I started using NLE’s a long way back, I ways tried to keep a very “neat” timeline. It was, in fact, when I started working in FCP legacy that I noted other FCP editors kept a very “sloppy” timeline and the FCP tutorial itself (Action Sports and Shark Dive) taught a checkerboard timeline that I immediately ignored and then told my students to ignore as well.
Looking at these timelines (and the one Oliver posted in the Wav File thread) I would have tried something different to make it more manageable to the eye and brain. With FCPX (and DS, for that matter) I would use Compound clips to neaten this up (composite container clips in DS, but they work a bit differently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_1KYKIORY&app=desktop). SFX in one, titles in another, music in a third and so on. Only after one task is complete would those clips go into compound clips. For example, after cutting the base sound of on-camera and VO, I might move on to Sound Effects. Once completed, all those would go into a container. Same with music, titles, etc. I know some folks don’t like Compound Clips. Why is that?
All that said, I don’t do a lot of really long form stuff. Most is 15 minutes and under. And again, this is not being snarky, just want to understand how other editors think and work to perhaps improve my skills and understanding. Thanks in advance!
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU BrandcenterSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
Part of the reason for FCP X’s timeline clutter is the lack of any overwrite function with connected clips. If you were editing clips to V2 in a track-based NLE and left the ends sloppy, each successive edit would overwrite the excess and leave you with a clean timeline. With X, it simply stacks each clip higher. With tracks, you only end up with 2 video tracks when you add 5 b-roll shots. With X, you end up with the equivalent of 6, until you clean it up.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “With X, it simply stacks each clip higher. With tracks, you only end up with 2 video tracks when you add 5 b-roll shots. With X, you end up with the equivalent of 6, until you clean it up.
“Thats only if you use the old checkerboard method. Can’t you simply just cut them back to back and keep all b-roll at one level (connected clip level or a second “track” if you will)? Why have footage “underneath” other b-roll shots?
If I were using Legacy and tracks, I still would only have one video track. The b-roll would be a video-only edit to the video one track. That’s just my style. I hate cluttered timelines.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up