Premiere or FCPX, still hating FCPX’s timeline behaviour

[Charlie Austin]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “but the degree to which people can now casually describe the multitude of live software editing reactions to any editor’s action in the X timeline is weirdly interesting. It’s awfully new.”

lol… X does do some interesting things, which can be very disconcerting if you don’t expect it. Like dragging an I or O point on a connected clip, and clips all over the timeline move out of the way in preparation… even if you’re not extending the clip into their space. Release the edit point, and they all drop back into place. 🙂 However, my favorite undocumented “feature” (next to the secret ~ lock combo) is with clip skimming…

When skimming a clip, if you use the arrow keys (or a scroll wheel mapped to L/R arrow) skim to the end of the clip in the timeline… you can keep skimming past the end into the next clip (or into empty space). Try it! 🙂

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Oliver Peters]

[Andy Neil] “As far as I’ve noticed, the placement was consistent to the position of other connected clips in the timeline and the overall length of the clip you’re placing in the timeline.
“

Out of curiosity, are you dragging to the timeline or using the “Q” keystroke?

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Charlie Austin] “lol… X does do some interesting things, which can be very disconcerting if you don’t expect it. Like dragging an I or O point on a connected clip, and clips all over the timeline move out of the way in preparation… even if you’re not extending the clip into their space. Release the edit point, and they all drop back into place. 🙂 However, my favorite undocumented “feature” (next to the secret ~ lock combo) is with clip skimming…

When skimming a clip, if you use the arrow keys (or a scroll wheel mapped to L/R arrow) skim to the end of the clip in the timeline… you can keep skimming past the end into the next clip (or into empty space). Try it! 🙂
“

sure mate – it’s an alladin’s cave – I love great parts of it – the fundamental thing that we are all dancing around is whether apple were intellectually bothered to describe a package that could get a basic hold of editing as a discipline. As it currently stood.

I’m not sure that they were. FCPX feels like wilfully exclusionary methodology.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Jeff Kirkland]

[Steve Connor] “The one that suits your personal workflow – end of story!”

I mostly cut corporate stuff and over time I’ve used Premiere, Media Composer, Sony Vegas, Final Cut 7, Media 100, Edius, and probably a few I’ve forgotten about. I tried FCPX the day it was released and it was love at first sight.

I sat at the desk and thought Apple must have read my mind. This was exactly the way I wanted an NLE to work. Maybe it didn’t do everything I needed yet but I completely understood the magnetic timeline and knew from day one I was never going back to a ‘traditional’ NLE.

I understand that not every NLE suits every editor’s workflow but it still amazes me that after all this time people still seem to take great pleasure in finding FCPX’s every flaw and shouting it to the world.

And while this thread may have sparked a little more of that debate, It’s great to see that while the original poster may not be able to adapt to FCPX, or adapt FCPX to his way of working, at least he gave it a try.

Jeff Kirkland | Video Producer | Southern Creative Media | Melbourne Australia
http://www.southerncreative.com.au | G+: https://gplus.to/jeffkirkland | Twitter: @jeffkirkland

[Bill Davis]

[Andy Neil] “[Steve Connor] “Don’t you mean Final Cut Pro XXX?”

That really puts a new spin on the Audition Feature.”

Thanks both of you for making the necessary puns.

This way I don’t have to resort to a phrase like “we’re finally seeing some cracks in the final dykes holding back FCP-X acceptance…”

oops.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Chris Harlan]

[Steve Connor] “I don’t think that CS6 matches up particularly well to FCP7 in a lot of respects, however Premiere Pro CC is much better – but you have to rent it!
“

I don’t know. I found CS6 to be pretty close. CC is definitely closer, but Pr 6 is definitely FCP7 adjacent.

[Marcus Moore]

Roles as timeline organization please, Apple.

[Marcus Moore]

It will be interesting to see if a FCPX 10.1 bring with it any “regressionary” changes.

When you’re trying to define a new way to edit like this, you may not be able to see how all roads end. And maybe some of the ideas they’ve proposed don’t work out.

It’s impossible to know if the dev team ever originally planned to put in an Event Viewer (preview window), or if it was a concession to user demand. Personally I hardly use it.

For instance I think there’s a pretty good case to be made for recombining the Project/Event structure into a single file. While the concept has some potential advantages (separating media from “cuts”) for multi-user situations- there may be more advantages to a combined structure where there’s a better free-flow of metadata between projects and events, since metadata is unquestionably FCPX’s strong points.

[Bret Williams]

Let’s not forget better green screen, better multicam, better faster scrubbing/logging. And personally I find X to be much much faster at at least the first draft of a cut. Non-destructive no-track patching just seems simpler and faster.

[Chris Harlan]

Oh, my. Was FUN’s “We Are Young” playing in the background as you wrote up this analogy? I know you guy’s just don’t believe it, but there are situations where X is an inferior choice. If you don’t run into those situations, then you can’t see it, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Sometimes there are reasons that you actually need bins, not just prefer them. For some of the things I have to regularly do, bins that I can arrange are going to be much faster and much more serviceable than not having bins.

X is great for lots of stuff, but not everything. I find it so difficult to understand why you guys work so hard to justify your choice with these odd analogies. Yes, for some people it is a matter of taste, but for some situations it just doesn’t work as well as other options. Maybe its because the shout down was so hard and heavy up front, but going “you guys are water skis, and we’re wake boards,” or “you guys are Kubrick-heads, but we’re totally Joss Whedon” is just madness.