-
Smarter and Faster
-
[Bill Davis] “And I suspect as complex as this new show they are mounting appears – it will likely end up on FCP.Co as a case study maybe next year. “
Staying on point – since I was talking about lag in dragging clips around on the timeline…
All I know is that if I have several primary clips with connected clips as a compete chunk at the end of a 60+ minute timeline, and I want to move that somewhere towards the front – and it has to pass a bunch of other clips with their own connected clips along the way – then it’s easier to copy/delete and then paste/insert, than it is to drag that whole stretch. At that point the differences between doing this in FCPX versus Premiere or Avid is trivial. Dragging is relatively easy if I’m simply swapping around the order of soundbites with minimal connected B-roll.
In addition, I’m well aware that Lumaforge is better suited than other NAS systems for FCPX. But then OpenDrives is also better suited for Premiere. Just depends on what one can afford. But I highly doubt that if anyone is working with native RED or 4K ProRes files on a network, that the performance will be the same as on local storage. Now, if you have a bunch of C100 HD files, it’s likely a different story.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Michael Hancock] ”
The hardest part isn’t learning to use software for a job – it’s learning which software to use for a job.”Utterly right, that’s it, pack up the forum we’re all done here. We have the correct answer!
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “As I have to keep repeating whenever I say anything slightly disobliging about FCP X, I enjoy and admire many things about it. Just not everything.”
The problem is you are misrepresenting what the presentation is about. I didn’t watch the entire thing, but I didn’t see at any point where Steve said FCP X was faster than other editing programs. He’s presenting how to work faster IN FCP X. Why is that a problem? I’m sure there are tons of videos out there about working faster in Premiere. You don’t see FCP X users running around discounting those.
You’re trying to make a straw man argument here. I don’t think there’s anyone that thinks FCP X is faster for all workflows.
-
[Brett Sherman] “He’s presenting how to work faster IN FCP X. “
I just said that, but thanks for the paraphrase.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Oliver Peters] “I’ve spoken with Thomas. He works on short form with low-res media using fast, local SSD media drives. That’s when FCPX excels.”
Well you might have to use low-res media also like him if your system is not handling the material.
I don’t have any lag when swapping shots with 4k material in an 60 min timeline (without low-res mat) at all. People who are interested can just test it with their own system and material to see how it works for them. It’s pretty easy to test that.
The cut and paste method you mentioned seems to defeat the purpose of the connected clips. You would have to lasso all the elements to do that instead of just dragging the primary clip.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Oliver Peters] “I would argue that to do the equivalent function in a track-based NLE takes more keystrokes, but isn’t inherently slower.”
It always surprises me to hear people make such a big deal out of this.
Did they really have so much difficulty doing this in other NLEs? How did they ever get anything done?”
You are actually calling Oliver out in this statement as not knowing what he is doing in tracks (since you use “his” statement ). I don’t think you meant to do that.
-
[Tony West] “I don’t have any lag when swapping shots with 4k material in an 60 min timeline (without low-res mat) at all.”
It could well be a factor of codecs, etc. Or just own’s own tolerance.
[Tony West] “The cut and paste method you mentioned seems to defeat the purpose of the connected clips. You would have to lasso all the elements to do that instead of just dragging the primary clip.”
Yes. So? When I move a piece, it’s usually a segment, so in FCPX that would be several primary clips and their associated connected clips, not just one. I have to lasso them anyway. Therefore, I don’t see a huge distinction in the method, having done it both ways.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Tony West] “The cut and paste method you mentioned seems to defeat the purpose of the connected clips. You would have to lasso all the elements to do that instead of just dragging the primary clip.”
Yes. So?”
So, your way is less efficient than how I wold do it.
First, if you are going to use that method you have to make sure that you lasso all of the elements that you want to past. If you don’t, whatever you miss won’t be there when you paste. I’m only worried about the primary clip or clips.
[Oliver Peters] ” When I move a piece, it’s usually a segment, so in FCPX that would be several primary clips and their associated connected clips,”
If I’m moving a segment I still only lasso the primary clips (which is less lassoing than your example.)
If you have over 10 elements connected to a primary like Carter, it’s a lot more work trying to reach vertically down to lasso all of those clips. (That’s why I imagine you don’t see him doing it that way often)
Your way is 1. Lasso more (than I would) 2. Cut 3. move the playhead down the timeline to where you want it to be. 4. select that spot 5. Paste
My way is 1. Lasso less 2. drag everything to the spot.
There are often multiple ways of doing the same thing. I often see people doing things in X that I would never do. If you are working like that I can see why you don’t feel it’s any more efficient. I wouldn’t either if I did it that way.
Also, the point isn’t can you move chunks in X more efficiently than me (doesn’t look like you can) but rather can you move the same chunks in a track-base time as efficiently. You would have to make your own version of the carter video to prove it.
-
[Tony West] “So, your way is less efficient than how I wold do it.”
As I have said before, my way most likely involves more keystrokes, but total time would be about the same. Especially when the move is complex. Simply swapping around soundbites with a few B-Roll shots is relatively easy and fast in any NLE, but of course, X has the edge in that simple scenario. Remember, too, that in most complex scenarios, B-roll shots and connected audio, like music and SFX, aren’t always connected to the primary clips that you wish to move. Many often prelap the cut to the primary. Therefore, you also have to factor in the need to move the connection point in X before doing any dragging.
[Tony West] “There are often multiple ways of doing the same thing. I often see people doing things in X that I would never do. If you are working like that I can see why you don’t feel it’s any more efficient. I wouldn’t either if I did it that way.”
To each his/her own. Don’t assume that I haven’t done it the other way, as well. I’ve only been cutting on X since day 1. And for a time exclusively in X. I just find that in the long run – for me at least – dragging is the least efficient and least accurate way to work.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
You’re right you did say that. But your argument against this video is that he should have made a different video than the one he intended to make. That’s a weird argument. Sort of like going to an action film and complaining that what you really wanted was a rom-com.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up