-
Roles based mixer
-
[Peter Grunden] “Ducking is not normaly applied using automation”
That may work for a simple offline editors mix but when audio goes to be mixed properly it is done with mix automation driving faders because it is never a simple gain reduce by 6db around a dialog track.
If a roles based mixer is going to act like a conventional track/bus mixer then it will require automatable faders
-
[Michael Gissing] “when audio goes to be mixed properly it is done with mix automation driving faders because it is never a simple gain reduce by 6db around a dialog track.”
And if that level of sophistication is needed it’s more likely going to be mixed a real DAW rather than an NLE. What I’d hate to see happen is FCPX try to become all things to all people. It’s strength is its simplicity.
Jeff Kirkland | Video Producer | Southern Creative Media | Melbourne Australia
http://www.southerncreative.com.au | G+: https://gplus.to/jeffkirkland | Twitter: @jeffkirkland -
[Jeff Kirkland] “And if that level of sophistication is needed it’s more likely going to be mixed a real DAW rather than an NLE. What I’d hate to see happen is FCPX try to become all things to all people. It’s strength is its simplicity.”
Sure – at the moment it is simple. What people are asking for is actually a level of complexity that means many jobs can be done without going to a DAW. So a Roles mixer must be able to have bus and track style processing and automation or it will be doing nothing of use for anyone.
A Roles mixer that does that it would be the same facility as other NLEs like Pr CC15, Vegas and Resolve.
-
I’d argue that 90% of FCPX users don’t need more than I described and Apple have a tendency to leave that last 10% to other apps.
Jeff Kirkland | Video Producer | Southern Creative Media | Melbourne Australia
http://www.southerncreative.com.au | G+: https://gplus.to/jeffkirkland | Twitter: @jeffkirkland -
[Walter Soyka] “I get Premiere’s dual (dueling?) mixers, but I think FCPX needs more than that to preserve magnetism.
In the example I gave above, ducking music for dialog, the mix automation is applied to the music role, but should be anchored by the dialog clip.”
I get what you’re saying completely. In the Adobe way, the track automation isn’t anchored to anything but time, and that’s what makes it kinda sucky, and it’s what made way for the Clip Mixer once Final Cut Studio 3 died.
I would imagine that’s the way it would have to work in FCPX, if Roles were used as busses. Anything else would be tied to a clip and it’s relative time. If you had automation tied to multiple clips, then you’d have to recreate it, move it, or delete it. To FCPX’s credit, moving automation handles is super easy, and I could imagine a Role based bus with automation (and the UI to go with it) would be as easy.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “In the example I gave above, ducking music for dialog, the mix automation is applied to the music role, but should be anchored by the dialog clip.”
What you are requesting is quite advanced – an object based processing engine where clips would interact with other clips, similar to After Effects expressions.
I think this is only possible in a trackless timeline like in FCPX.
In Pro tools, Nuendo and Logic there is an option to move automation with clips, but not with clips on a different track.
These apps don’t have advanced object based processing like FCPX (or Premiere, for that matter), except clip gain. They can’t apply different effects and pan to each clip, except with rendering. That’s why you can see audio sessions with several hundred tracks, and with just a couple of clips on each track.
One possible way forward for FCPX is to improve Logic.
I created a FCPX project with about 300 audio clips and Logic 10.2.2 did arrange them on 73 tracks named after roles. I did reduce the number of those tracks by half and this could be done by Logic itself.
Logic also does not understand clip effects, whether static or keyframeable. Clip gain and pan is converted to track automation, so here we go again. Handling polyfonic tracks from field recorder is also rather basic compared to FCPX.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up