Activity › Forums › Creative Community Conversations › Todays FCP X announcement
-
Chris Harlan
January 31, 2012 at 9:37 pm[Greg Jones] “It’s small, but I like the fact you can match frame back to the ‘bin’ or whatever they call it now and your original clip has the in and out points from your edit.”
Not small at all. That’s good news.
-
Mark Cookman
January 31, 2012 at 9:40 pmAn example for you folks: with FCP7 multiple editors can use the same clip (located on a shared drive) in each of their timelines and edit with it concurrently, meanwhile an FX artist is able to update the clip, the changes are reflected in any edits referencing that media.
Can’t see a way we can be that slick with FCPX at the moment, I’m hoping there will be some kind of FCServer solution for collaborative needs.
-
Craig Seeman
January 31, 2012 at 9:41 pm[Greg Jones] “I still don’t like the fact that there’s not a ‘Source’ Monitor”
Interesting how Multicam seems to work though. You got your multiclips playing on the left and the clip you’ve edited on the right. It’s a step away from ganging.
-
Morten
January 31, 2012 at 9:51 pmYes I know it’s possible to create a “disc mount” and cheat FcpX, but that is not a professional workflow. We have editors comung in on random computers, who have to open up and work on projects. This needs to be done in a true shared environment, which FcpX does not (yet) offer, unless you are on a SAN…
– No Parking Production –
2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS5.5, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid…. and FCPX on trial
-
Andy Neil
January 31, 2012 at 9:57 pm[mark cookman] “with FCP7 multiple editors can use the same clip (located on a shared drive) in each of their timelines and edit with it concurrently, meanwhile an FX artist is able to update the clip, the changes are reflected in any edits referencing that media.”
If you do that with FCP7, the clip will go offline and gets automatically reconnected.
Guess what? It works exactly the same in FCPX now. So I guess the future is now, eh?
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Matthew Sonnenfeld
February 1, 2012 at 12:25 amMaybe I’m closed minded but until (and it’s still an “if”) they add a way to use a more traditional track based timeline, stellar multi-cam and improved keying, even if I can open my old projects and monitor properly (almost), is still not for me.
Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary -
Mark Cookman
February 1, 2012 at 12:51 amGuess what? It works exactly the same in FCPX now. So I guess the future is now, eh?
Perhaps you are right and after catching up with the now through a little background reading; “guess what” I should have said is :
After the update it seems studios can still only use FCPX collaboratively if they run on a SAN.
Due to flexibility needs; there is no ‘per seat’ file-share licensing in our future. -
Adam Dewhirst
February 1, 2012 at 1:27 am“the use of a more track based timeline environment”… this has been the most frustrating thing for me with fcp x… this storyline business (what if you don’t produce stories?), i just don’t see the point… what advantages does it have over tracks on a timeline where you can see everything and move any clip or clips (video or audio) around at your whim with or without effecting other clips… the only thing i didn’t like about the fcp6 timeline, which i still use, is that when you nest a clip you can’t apply global effects to that nest… i’m not sure if you can do this with compound clips or not?
multicam editing is not what i have ever used nor ever will so this update is very poor for my part…
-
Craig Seeman
February 1, 2012 at 1:39 amTimelines have been used for certain functions that FCPX endeavors to obviate the need for.
Organizational needs will be managed by metadata.
Editing function needs are managed variously.
Visual feedback some might still want be the function for that is already diminished.Basically you have to look at WHY you need one clip on top of another. There are other ways to fulfill most of those needs. Roles, while still a work in progress, allow you to disable clips that perform a specific function. They provide control based on function rather than track layer. Compositing also works but could also use some improvement.
-
Matthew Sonnenfeld
February 1, 2012 at 1:56 amTe problem is that all of those things take extra steps. Tracks work. They’re straight forward. I dont want to think about WHY I need tracks or why some things may interact the way they do. Tracks have been used this way for a reason and it’s proven at this point.
Take the issue with audio in FCPX. Sure you can export audio with dialogue, effects, music, etc. but the way i understand it is that the clips all need to be labeled individually so that the XML can organize them coherently to go to ProTools. Yes it’s nice metadata to know what’s dialogue and what’s not at a glance but its extra steps. It defeats the purpose if you ask me. I just want tracks. They organize themselves with minimal effort.
Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up