the event browser

[Andrew Richards]

I agree with the spirit of this criticism too. There ought to be a way to turn off the animations in the GUI. I don’t have a problem with rounded corners, but eye candy GUI animations are superfluous and should be optional. I wouldn’t say it feels “more sluggish than FCP4 HD on OS9 on a PowerPC”, but the point about superfluous animations in the GUI is a valid one.

Yes, Apple biased the development to the FCExpress end of the spectrum, but that doesn’t mean FCPX can’t or won’t also be a serious tool by v10.2 or 10.3.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “with respect, not for me – or maybe we just edit a bit differently, but I really do use the source viewer all the time. I think its conceptually important that its there. Besides – ganging and multiclip are two acknowledged key features – an they both need to be hosted in something that can’t really diverge an awful lot from the logic and function of a source monitor. So you’re going to have to be able to invoke a source monitor? I don’t need the FCP7 GUI back, but they need to figure out the source monitor.”

Quite valid. I stated elsewhere in the thread and I’ll state again here that I think they could afford to be much more liberal in the use of the two-up view (I’d like to see more of it anyway). Ganging and Multi-clip features (as yet unavailable in FCPX) would certainly require a two-up view.

However, lots of FCP editors used the Viewer very little even on the old versions, for them it is wasted space a lot of the time. A distraction, even. I agree they “cut too close to the bone”, but I don’t think they made a mistake cutting at all. There was a lot of fat there too.

Best,
Andy

[Aindreas Gallagher]

yeah sorry – I’m reading your replies but I’m on moderation so there’s a bit of a delay my end

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Andrew Richards]

I agree the superfluous animations need an off switch. The chrome was design with a touch-based future in mind, methinks.

Best,
Andy

[Aindreas Gallagher]

I’ve totally repeated myself with the chrome thing there – like three times. anyhoo…

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Andrew Richards]

No apology needed. This has become a non-linear conversation!

Best,
Andy

[David Lawrence]

[Andrew Richards] ” You still have access to a two-up viewer, but it is only active when you are manipulating an edit in the timeline.”

Not really, You see two filmstrips in the timeline in that view, but it only monitors whatever side you’re trimming. There’s still no way to visually match.

[Andrew Richards] “You can rightly argue that your way is akin to the old discipline necessary for an edit when the editor was physically cutting celluloid, but the flexibility of non-destructive non-linear editing permits an alternative method that Apple is clearly embracing. “

I’d argue just the opposite. My way of working is totally non-linear and heavily multitask-oriented. I can’t think of anything germane to non-linear editing in removing the source monitor. It’s a design mistake, pure and simple. Let’s see how long it takes to come back. My guess is around the time multicam returns.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

yeah no worries – I’ve said it like four times on the list there… eh.

And god please don’t mention touch based FCP. at that rate the software is going to have an optional finding nemo theme, where actual fish float behind the clips and occasionally nibble the edges of them.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

agreed. I’m inclined to label that for what it was: a mistake.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Andrew Richards]

[David Lawrence] “Not really, You see two filmstrips in the timeline in that view, but it only monitors whatever side you’re trimming. There’s still no way to visually match.”

True. Two-up only happens when using the Trim tool. My mistake. Two-up ought to be always-on when in the Precision Editor, at least as an option. If we are supposed to make edit decisions in there, we should get to see the abutting frames no matter which handle we’re turning at any given time.

[David Lawrence] “I’d argue just the opposite. My way of working is totally non-linear and heavily multitask-oriented. I can’t think of anything germane to non-linear editing in removing the source monitor. It’s a design mistake, pure and simple. Let’s see how long it takes to come back. My guess is around the time multicam returns.”

You’re right. I mischaracterized the Precision Editor before, I was thinking of the Trim tool. The two-up view needs to be there more often. I don’t think it needs to be there all the time. I don’t need to see it when I’m not manipulating an edit, like if I’m playing with effects, audio, metadata, lots of other functions of the application. But it ought to appear for editing, and it doesn’t right now.

Best,
Andy