-
RedShark News: Opinion: Which are the best NLEs right now?
-
[John Rofrano] “In Vegas Pro when you group a clip with a lower third and perhaps music, the group always stays fixed as a whole. That is to say, if I move the lower third, the clip and the music move too. If I move the music, the clip and the lower third move too. If I move the clip the lower third and the music moves to. They always stick together like glue.
That’s NOT the behavior of Connected Clips in FCP X. With connected clips if I move the clip, the lower third and the music move too. If, however, I move the lower third, then just the lower third moves. If I move the music, just the music moves. The only time everything moves together is when I move the clip.”
Part of this is a fundamental difference between X and track-based NLEs. In Vegas, more so than other NLEs, audio and video tracks have equal weight and priority. That’s more or less the same approach in any track-based NLE. In X, they don’t. A primary storyline clip has different values and properties within the program than a secondary storyline clip or a connected clip. Part of the magic, but also the frustration of X.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Daniel Frome] “Pretend I have a complex arrangement of transitions, music, FX, and videoclips on my timeline. I first select them all and “group.” From now on, whenever I select any one of those components, all the items in the group are selected, allowing me to move around, delete, etc, the whole arrangement more or less as if it was one clip. “
I hate that behavior. 😉 That’s not how connected clips behave. What if you needed to move the music or an FX just a little bit to the left or right? How do you do that? In FCP X you just move it. Done! Don’t like it? Move it again. Done! In Premiere Pro you probably have to 1) ungroup it, 2) move it, 3) select all of the items that were previously grouped, 4) regroup it, 5) realize you didn’t move it quite enough so you ungroup it again, 6) move it, 7) select all of the items that were previously grouped, 8) regroup it… we’ll you get the idea. It gets tiresome real fast! Been there, done that, and groups are not as efficient for editing as connected clips, not by a long shot.
[Daniel Frome] “As for “how does it know which tracks?” – it relies on the the mouse pointer. The click/drag function will let you keep everything on the same tracks, or slide everything up/down some tracks if you are dragging it there. I think the idea of tracks probably does not make it as efficient as FCPX here, but it’s honestly hardly ever an issue.”
What if your clip has a sound fx attached but later on down the track there is music and then you drag it down the track and the sfx and music want to be in the same place on the same track but they can’t. So now you have to add a track or move the music to another track to make room before you drag. It’s just a lot of wasted time. This is where not having tracks makes it simple. in FCP X they just move out of each others way. You never have to stop and think about it. This happens a lot in my editing so for me it’s a big deal to not have to deal with this any more.
This is a case of “you have to experience it to fully understand”. I just read the same discussion about skimming. A previous FCP user was asking if Vegas Pro can skim and all of the Vegas Pro editors say, of course you just scrub the timeline playhead. Skimming is NOT scrubbing. Unless you have experienced skimming you won’t understand why skimming is not scrubbing. Same thing with connected clips. Connected clips are not groups. Similar concept but different behavior.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com -
[John Rofrano] “What if your clip has a sound fx attached but later on down the track there is music and then you drag it down the track and the sfx and music want to be in the same place on the same track but they can’t. “
That’s what’s known as a track assignment failure. 😉
-
[Charlie Austin] “People who mock FCP X as “dumbed down” are just as ridiculous as the people who imply editors that don’t like X are “dinosaurs”.”
Just to keep the record clear, I don’t remember anyone on the pro-X side ever actually calling those who don’t like it “dinosaurs.”
I think the term came up when folks on the anti-FCP X side expressed that they FELT that those arguing in Xs favor were treating them “as if” they were dinosaurs – a subtle but very important distinction.
Truth is, that writing that someone just doesn’t “get” about a thing – is often taken as shorthand implying that they’re not smart enough to do so. However, the truth is that the smartest people on the planet are prone to not “get” things that they haven’t looked at particularly closely. And in that context, it’s a very benign assertion. Even if the words themselves are taken really badly by the receiver.
Such was often the first couple of years here. And so it goes.
Happy Holidays and a Prosperous New Years to all my fellow “or Not” long timers!
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.
-
This is exactly what I figured. I’m definitely going to experiment with this once I land a project that is suited for Final Cut X.
-
[Charlie Austin] “There was no “retrofitting” Roles, like a lot of other features, just weren’t implemented when X first came out. You think thy added multi-cam as an afterthought too?”
No – multicam was something that would have been intended as it is such a basic feature and something that Legend had, but was not ready when they released the software. Roles however were not talked about as being a basic part of the mag timeline when the software was released. I honestly think they were a retrofit. It is false logic to think that if there was one software module intended but left out that everything they have added since was intentional.
But good on them for adding Roles. If you know for sure that roles were there from the start but not implemented then by all means enlighten me.
-
[John Rofrano] “the fact that the sound fx and music and overlays and whatever else is associated with it moves with it is pure genius.”
[Daniel Frome] “Can someone explain how this is different than grouping a series of elements on the Premiere Pro timeline? If I group, then moving something will keep them together in much the same way, no?”
Both grouping and temporary grouping are features on DAWs so the difference with X as I understand it is that it is the default behaviour and has to be disabled when that grouping is not what is desired. In that it is less flexible than a DAW with tracks and the range of grouping options that I have enjoyed for years. And during the twenty years that I have worked with that range of grouping options, permanent grouping is the least used function. I prefer temp grouping which is really easy to do in a track based system like Fairlight without risk of destructive overwriting.
-
I guess I should clarify that track and group behaviours in NLEs have always looked inferior to me to the way DAWs like Fairlight work. I hate cutting sound in NLEs for so many reasons. But track based overwrite is high on the list.
X has effectively solved the basic problem but in doing so has lost some of the human organisational power of a track based display and the ability to have clip AND track based audio processing plus sub bussing. The combination of conected clips, mag timeline and Roles still looks inferior to me compared to DAWs.
In the spirit of this thread I am prepared to say that for story editing X does appear to have solved the problem well enough to make editing a faster and possibly more creative process and for many workflows it would be superior. Could it be better with a track based system? For me the answer is yes but only if an NLE maker looked at how all the problems were solved years ago by DAWs like Fairlight.
-
[Michael Gissing] “If you know for sure that roles were there from the start but not implemented then by all means enlighten me.”
In the first release there was a pulldown with the initial Roles designation included. They didn’t do anything but they were there. Sorry but I can’t prove sans screenshot from X 10.0.0 but I certainly saw them and suspected their utility would be added in the future.
BTW there’s other metadata stuff in there which don’t seem to be implemented yet. I believe EXIF info is one example of that.
-
[Craig Seeman] “In the first release there was a pulldown with the initial Roles designation included. They didn’t do anything but they were there. Sorry but I can’t prove sans screenshot from X 10.0.0 but I certainly saw them and suspected their utility would be added in the future.”
OK happy to stand corrected on that.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up