-
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
-
You are frightening and intimidating me with your clarity of thought this late in the day.
Tim
-
[tony west] “What somebody did then, you should be able to recreate with 2012 technology some ten years later.”
2012 technology has nothing to do with UI design. The UI metaphor is whatever the designer chooses. A trackless timeline is a design choice, not a technology.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “Kind of reminds me of this short film:”
I have no idea how that relates to what’s being talked about, but I’m now thirsty!
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “More than you’d think, they just aren’t in museums.”
Great, so then you’ll understand why I disagree about multi-channel work being like music video. Music video is simple and fits the FCPX A/B single track linear model pretty well. Basically you’re cutting B-roll over a master audio track.
Multi-channel and interactive video typically require parallel composition. If FCPX had multiple independent primaries, I think this would cover it, but as it stands currently, connecting everything to the single primary is a huge constraint.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I also think if you want to edit multichannel video in FCPX, it would also be pretty decently easy due to FCPX’s superior grouping capabilities.”
You could do it using Jim’s template, but you’re working against FCPX’s strengths. Let me know how it goes if you do a multi-channel project that way. I think Premiere Pro 6 would be a better choice as you’d get the all the benefits of grouping as well as tracks.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I have no idea how that relates to what’s being talked about, but I’m now thirsty!”
Glad you enjoyed! Just responding to:
[Steve Connor] “You can easily edit in absolute time in FCPX if you don’t touch the primary.”
I mean, sure. And you can use a nail gun to open a beer bottle… 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “I mean, sure. And you can use a nail gun to open a beer bottle… ;)”
Or an ATV
-
[David Lawrence] “Great, so then you’ll understand why I disagree about multi-channel work being like music video. Music video is simple and fits the FCPX A/B single track linear model pretty well. Basically you’re cutting B-roll over a master audio track.”
I guess I just see things differently, David. Really, I bust things down to their parts. Fcpx is hardly an a/b model if you don’t want it to be, anymore than a track based program is. X has layers. I can’t believe we are still having this conversation about layers. Sometimes, I feel you are taunting us.
Anyway.
No, it’s not an MTV music video, but it is a sequenced bed of audio set to visuals. A music video of a different format x3.
That piece you sent had a soundtrack. It seemed fairly sequenced to me. It might not have started out that way, but there’s no question that pieces of that came out of some sort of sequencer, whatever that may be.
So, the description of the video says there are three channels.
If I were doing this (and how I edit multichannel (or screen) events) is to make three timelines with the soundtrack in each timeline and begin the edit.
I then add the three timelines nested in fcp7 to three video tracks with the soundtrack in that master timeline and arrange each nest so that they are visible.
That way I could independently edit any channel and also view all the nests together as one program. After the edit is complete, I usually bounce the whole thing out to AE and break it up in to it’s disparate parts via automatic duck. Sometimes it’s one big blended screen, sometimes it’s a combo of blended and disparate satellite screens that are all sepearate pieces, sometimes different aspect ratios, but comprise a whole program. Since AE had much better scaling and resolution independence than FCP7. I’d finish it all up in AE. Changes were a pain in the a$$.
This would be even more flexible in fcpx as I could have the each channel as a compound in the event, and a Project made up of the 3 channels. Any work done in compounds is updated in the master comp. in fcp7 you had to make sure you clicked things in the right order for this. Also, fcpx can handle up to 4k resolution and renders in float so I might not even need AE. If so, there’s this: https://clipexporter.mindtransplant.com/ae-features.php
Simply put the soundtrack in the primary, and add three compounds as connected clips. Nothing moves. I can choose to edit the compounds in their own timelines and simply switch to the master Project to get the birds eye view with audio muted on each compound. I suppose multicam could be used somewhere, but I think that would be limiting. Positioning the compounds will be easier and would also allow an export of all the pieces as one viewable movie.
[David Lawrence] “You could do it using Jim’s template, but you’re working against FCPX’s strengths. Let me know how it goes if you do a multi-channel project that way. I think Premiere Pro 6 would be a better choice as you’d get the all the benefits of grouping as well as tracks”
I have a lot of respect for Jim, but I don’t use his template. I agree that it works against X’s strengths, but Jim has devised a very clever way of working. I’m not trying to take that away.
I haven’t done a multichannel edit in a little while. I’d love to tackle it in X, it’d be a good challenge.
How would you do it, in your NLE of choice of course?
Jeremy
-
[TImothy Auld] “You are frightening and intimidating me with your clarity of thought this late in the day.
“Yes, my power to illuminate the bloody obvious can just be overwhelming sometimes.
-
I’m no essentialist philosopher. I don’t care about essential qualities or arguments about necessary features before a label can be applied. If it, or better yet, if I can get it to behave like a track, then it’s a track. If you can’t get it to behave like a track, then use a different UI. Does it matter to me? No. Does it matter to you? No.
The point of tracks is simultaneity.
The guy who said it was non-linearity has confused the two terms.
It’s all to me a bunch of silliness, but I do enjoy a good craigslist.org type open forum thread circa 2001.
I hope your clients are happy! I hope they return for more work!
-
Or you can use secondaries and “P” and Shift-F.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up