-
PluralEyes for FCPX demo video
-
” I would imagine that this method will for the basis for how multi cam will work in FCPX.”
I would be amazed if that were the case. That would basically be the way multicam was done by Digital Heaven in FCP before Apple figured out how to do it. It’s also how Adobe has been doing it. Seems unlikely that Apple wouldn’t find a better way to get multicam to work in FCP X.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Matthew Celia] “Just looking to justify the purchase since (for me) the synchronize clips feature in FCPX has worked.”
If I read their email correctly this morning:
This will be a free update for all current customers of PluralEyes for Final Cut Pro.
So no cost involved…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
What I’m wondering is if we can set this up in a compound clip in the event, and have it return as a compound clip in the event.
Is the beta public?
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Is the beta public?”
Since it appears on their home page, I don’t think the beta is a secret…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
[Mitch Ives] “Since it appears on their home page, I don’t think the beta is a secret…”
Cool. Thanks for the info.
-
I don’t think anybody has actually answered my question, except for Mark who is going to try it on a real world project soon and wrote “it seems there is more control over the syncing”.
I had a 6 camera shoot on a dance performance with a few starts and stops from the cameras and I had no problems syncing in FCP X. A bit amazed actually. Have yet to have a single problem with it (admit that I am mostly syncing duel system sound from DSLR footage).
My point is, if PluralEyes is going to effectively market to the 90% of DSLR shooters and multi-cam guys who are out there and not using the software at the moment, I’d really like to see some sort of comparison. From the video, I think that the dual system sound workflow is way too complex. I am impressed with the last demo. But would like to see FCPX try the same thing (and perhaps fail).
Maybe if I get a moment, I’ll try some tests…
—————-
FCP Guru
http://www.fcpguru.com -
FCPX synching has worked for me as well. It’s EXTREMELY SLOW and if you stop it thinking it’s hung it will look like a fail. It’s so slow that I can probably sync as fast or faster by eye and waveform.
I’d love to see a timing test comparison.
Don’t forget FCP legacy was slow using its camera stabilization which is why Core Melt’s Lock and Load was so popular, so it’s not uncommon for a develop to find a better/faster way with greater user controls.
-
[Matthew Celia] “I don’t think anybody has actually answered my question, except for Mark who is going to try it on a real world project soon and wrote “it seems there is more control over the syncing”.”
Although I didn’t answer directly, I did respond and said that FCPX completely failed at my sync project. Now that I know there’s a public beta, I am going to try it out and see if it does any better.
Jeremy
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “there. is not. the in-house. Apple capacity. required to do any of this kind of stuff anymore. “
But let’s face it, Andy, FCP Legacy was not known for it’s in house effect prowess. It heavily relied an a third party infrastructure to make up for it’s short comings, which has been a huge complaint of FCPX (no third party support).
Look at SmoothCam, when it worked, it was completely awesome, when it failed, it failed spectacularly.
Here’s a third party system that upon initial investigation, seems to work better than built in FCPX tools.
So, in that sense, we are getting back to FCP normalcy, right?
Jeremy
-
yes, in a sense, that is a very true point – this is an area that can be handsomely filled by third parties – my genuine concern at this point is about the structure and substructure of the application itself – as lawrence put it: we’re looking at multiple subsidence cracks appearing in a number of places relative to system performance, stability, the gob smacking file bloat when the project file is exposed to markers…
there’s two questions arising out of that – one – how structural could the flaws be? people are positing that the actual underlying database itself could be fundamentally flawed, I mean sure, maybe we could be looking at stuff that is super easy to fix, alternatively however, the number of springs falling out of this thing could indicate deep, extremely hard to rectify, basic structural errors in Apple’s approach.
the second thing is that if the situation is as serious as it may be – what confidence do we realistically have that Apple have anything like the wherewithal to remedy this? Given that they are the ones that just executed the software? Its been said a couple of times that there were real internal struggles in Apple over what the application was meant to be – and that at a certain point, a large part of the job of putting it together was handed over to the itunes software team. I don’t particularly like or respect itunes as software, and I don’t like the idea of them knocking out chunks of a fit for purpose video editing system.
I would stand here until doomsday bashing Apple – God knows – but on a certain genuine level I’m beginning to wonder if they still actually know what they are doing with this kind of software – if they actually still have at all the necessary skill set or basic competence to internally produce this class of software?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up