-
Less a showdown, more a decision – Phillip Bloom outlines his reasoning for choosing PPro 6.
-
” why take us all to moron town?”
That made me laugh!
Mark
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “if the world economy falls, and the cow crumbles, I will spend the last of my savings to run and host this forum, just so I can occasionally come back and kick FCPX in the shins. I would plan on doing this until retirement age.”
An example of moderation in all things. Bravo.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “devil’s advocate Oliver: if you had to pick an editing platform over a three year horizon, given the two companies behaviour – would you pick PPro, or FCPX?”
I would pick X also Aindreas and heres ONE reason why,
the “pile on effect”
Look, like it or not makers of plug-ins and editing tools have decided that X is worth investing in.
It seems like every week another product that can be used in X hits the market.
It’s like a snowball rolling down a hill. As people like fxfactory, iZotope RX and others keep piling on, a person like me who uses X benefits.
Have you used Neatvideo? A great product for fixing gain in video. Walter M’s timeline was interesting for me to look at but at the end of the day, if somebody hands me a gained-out video I just need to fix it.
(I hate to throw this in there but) the Iphone benefits from all these people piling on making apps for it so THEY can get paid.
The “pile on effect”
All these makers see a money train for them coming down the track and they want to get aboard.
They would be crazy not to. This is how they get paid.You know as well as I do that much of client work is a person coming in and saying ” I saw this spot and they did this or that. Can you create that look?”
Most of the time you will be able to create the same look because you are using a product from the SAME manufacture.
Yes, they make these tools for PPro and others also but they don’t leave out X
We will all end up with much of the same tools and it will come down to which NLE you just prefer to use them with.I said this from the beginning and I”m saying it now. X (along with making their own improvements) is going to benefit from other people’s self interest. And so am I.
I enjoy reading your post btw : )
-
[Oliver Peters] “I was talking about Avid’s Title Tool. Were you referring to Adobe’s? If so, it’s leaps and bounds ahead of Avid’s. There is Avid Marquee, too, which not that many editors use, from what I can tell. It’s pretty unintuitive.”
Yes, I was talking about Adobe’s. You’re absolutely right about Avid’s.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Oliver Peters] “That portion is primarily the organizational tools and features like skimming.”
ok – I have, on a reasonably honest level now, with my quids in paid for FCPX, played about.
a few things – do you have any problems with all the tags and events exposing into the one window? do you miss multiple bins on a second monitor? this feels dangerously like a name drop, but say I have, due to unusual circumstances, been cutting a thirty second TV advert destined for your good nation, for a major sports company’s software product the last week – it involves transitions through various rooms. It is literally an edit of rooms. needless to say, those rooms have bins.
so – I cannot get how some people are willing to completely forgo the visual and cognitive importance of multiple bins containing postcard video picons (or list) – nicely arranged on a second screen – not to mention the continuous re-arrangement of them onscreen as reminders and thought process. The physical call to a bin, tossing it to the left or right, tapping something on top of it – I cannot see how this is not fundamentally important to the internal process of recall and prioritisation. how this is improved by transplanting tags intended for semantic word search into visuals, which by definition demand a spatial scenario to delineate them – given we do this on the timeline to begin with – given we spatially organise on the timeline, how stupid were apple to decide that spatial organisation in the preparation of the edit, in the form of objects to be fundamentally delineated and categorised in containers – how did they decide this was old hat?
further on – do you have problems with the need to twirl down the clips, repeatedly, to see the sub selections? Or do you work mostly in filmstrip mode> how can anyone in existence do that outside an apple demo?
Do you have problems with the actual GUI size of the elements? I find for instance the basic type choice too large – the available screen real estate in the single viewable bin area, the one bin, on a laptop strikes me as ludicrous. its designed for minimum use case scenarios. I see a quarter of the attributes I saw in FCP7.
do you find the timeline clip lozenges far too vertical and compressed at mid zoom? Do you find it easy to perceive the clip relationships at mid zoom? Do you find the reaction on current top spec hardware unsatisfactory when lifting and repositioning clips? do you find the drop shadows and dissolve delete animations gratuitous and counter productive?
[Oliver Peters] ” I feel that I have already been able to do better grades with X “
no arguments here to a point. the power masks are superlative, and make a mockery of all other editing systems. Avid, I now realise, hasn’t even geometrics as a native attribute, and the application of effects, where you are made dive inside them, in russian doll fashion – is a joke for the ages.
however effects raises an important point -which is that it is largely based on motion, and interesting as that may be, it is the sony connect music service of graphics and motion design applications.
which is to say that all of its innovations, its behaviours, its layer and timeline dichotomy, while interesting, are of no use to anyone – because no one, since 1910 has been employed to drive motion. I have always felt that apple’s adherence to a completely insignificant application that no one will ever care about in their professional lives is a mark of a sony style inward view. they don’t care that no one cares.
have you tried curves in premiere? they are curves.
anyway –
Oliver mate – I am down with you being up for FCPX, but, god as ever I am here to kick its shins. It just feels intellectually sloppy and inattentive to the craft to me – sure, they’re iterating now, they’re a little red faced, but I find that I have decided that FCPX, in all of its chrome heavy, process stupid glory is about as important to me or anyone as motion ever was.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
I don’t think a single one of these points or questions (I’m not sure what they are – I lose all comprehension after the sixth comma in a sentence) are actual inhibitors to workflow on a daily basis.
The real annoyances we encounter are:
-No love for the primary
-No easy match framing from a keyword tag to source
-Compound clips don’t extend past their original point even if source on it has room
-The little effects animation thingee on the upper left of a clip is accidentally clicked far too often
-no draggable effects from the inspector
-no quick and easy way to make customized transitions without going into Motion
-keyword sets don’t load with a selected event
-roles sets can’t be saved and loaded
-Project view is too big and clunky
-folders aren’t movable between drives in project view
-broken apart audio doesn’t have an easy out of sync warning
-can’t copy compound clips back to event
-can’t copy metadata from one clip to another (for example if we received a color corrected version of a show that we’ve already key tagged)
-generators data doesn’t copy into an even (like with slates built with Motion)These would be much more useful things to complain about, IMHO.
John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “do you miss multiple bins on a second monitor?”
Thus far I have been running X on either a system with dual 20″ monitors or a single 30″. I prefer dual and X supports that. So for me, events are on the left and viewer/timeline on the right. I manually remove any unnecessary events (inactive jobs) from the FC Events folder and typically have all footage in one event. Then I use keyword collections like bins with subclips. I never work in icon view – list only. The exception is if the event/collection only contains stills. I like the “filmstrip” that results, which can be spread across most of the top of the left monitor. This is useful if you have a clip with several repeated takes in the same clip. By arrowing-down and skimming, I can very quickly view successive clips in a keyword collection. Then I use “rejects” and “favorites” as I go. Typically I set the view to “hide rejected”.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “The physical call to a bin, tossing it to the left or right, tapping something on top of it – I cannot see how this is not fundamentally important to the internal process of recall and prioritisation. how this is improved by transplanting tags intended for semantic word search into visuals,”
While I used to work that way, too, most of the time in FCP 7, I opened bins as tabs. Now with MC6 and higher, Avid is also moving to tabs.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “further on – do you have problems with the need to twirl down the clips, repeatedly, to see the sub selections? Or do you work mostly in filmstrip mode”
I do work in the filmstrip mode, but you have to twirl open list clips, too. Don’t like that and hope it gets improved. However, if you are twirling the disclosure open to simply show “favorite” selections, an alternate approach is to use a smart collection that gets populated with your “favorites” as you go.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Do you have problems with the actual GUI size of the elements?……do you find the timeline clip lozenges far too vertical and compressed at mid zoom?”
Yes. Some streamlining would be nice. I think we covered a lot of that in David’s track thread. If I could choose, I would go with an FCP 7 timeline structure inside X, even if nothing else changed.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “however effects raises an important point -which is that it is largely based on motion, and interesting as that may be, it is the sony connect music service of graphics and motion design applications.”
Sure. Clearly there’s a template mentality. But honestly that’s about all most editors can handle. Why do you think MB Looks is so popular? I find that many of the effects don’t really play well in FCP X. Most of the freebees people have built – all based on the templates – perform far better than most of the paid choices. That’s one of the reasons I see good synergy with Smoke. X for most people and for creative cutting – Smoke as the “finishing” system after picture lock on X.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “have you tried curves in premiere? they are curves.”
Yes, although I don’t like the way their regular color correctors work. You can run Nattress curves in X which covers that base if you need to. I like Irudis Tonalizer a lot and the combination of that, plus the color board turns out some really nice work. I would expect to see Baselight come to X in the future, which might be the best way to go for serious work without bouncing out to Resolve.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “but I find that I have decided that FCPX, in all of its chrome heavy, process stupid glory is about as important to me or anyone as motion ever was”
Sure, I get that. It’s a bit of a gamble. I know the other tools, so it’s not like time spent in X takes away from learning something else. OTOH, if X catches on better than you think it will, it’s a wise investment to learn it and be ahead of the curve. As far as Motion – yes I agree. I much prefer to work in AE when I need to do something complex. But I also know others who simply can’t wrap their head around AE or even Photoshop for that matter.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
all in all adobe states that its goal is to make its cs line into something indispensabil for video content production. can the same be said for fcpx or even avid.
rc
-
Who the Hell knows? I will continue to use what works for me without regard to who says what. As will most others.
Tim
-
good god oliver you are infuriatingly rational and measured. its not on.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up