-
Tonight’s the night
-
If you don’t like FCPX, it’s fine Michael. I have zero problems with three point edits.
For future readers, three point edits are entirely possible.
Mark in, mark out on timeline, find clip, mark in and edit.
Mark in, mark out on timeline, find clip, mark out, modifier edit.
Find clip mark in, mark out, use playhead on timeline as in point, edit.
Find clip, mark in, mark out, use playhead as out point, modifier edit.
Jeremy
-
There is a difference between understanding some concept and learning every workaround to use an implementation of a flawed concept for actual work.
There is nothing hard in the magnetic timeline, the Event Browser, the relational database, connected clips, compound clips to understand.
-
[Bill Davis] “… largely rough-in and even fine tune your visuals, then break apart and tweak your audio after your video is largely locked.”
This is a very constrained and limited way of looking at the edit process. This is an audio-visual medium in time, and interplay between all the elements is at the core of the challenges of editing – often one leads the other (video leading audio, or audio leading video) an often it is actually a more complex interplay. To restrict editing to “tweak audio after video” is a very limiting approach.
[Bill Davis] “That’s pretty much the point of the “picture lock” tradition in movie-making isn’t it? To establish a visual core that you work your audio around, rather than just splitting and moving everything section by section?”
“Picture Lock” is a point in post production where certain decisions (both visual and audial) are “locked in” – both the visual and the audio portions are developed more based on those “locked” decisions.
Franz.
-
[John Davidson] “Here’s an example – we had 3 channels of separate sound embedded in a single clip. We wanted to trim (but keep) just one channel and not the others – so we had to break the clip apart to do that. Then in the chaos of editing one clip lost sync with lip flap.
We’re breaking apart less and less as we get the hang of it more, but that’s a specific example of why we did that.”
I had a recent shoot (double system from 788T) with two booms, 4 discreet lavs, and a mix of everything. That’s seven channels of audio on each clip (plus the embedded guide track on the camera media itself), and dammit if I didn’t use all of them (including the mix which is usually just a guide) at some point during the edit. I did this edit in FCP7.
It’d be nice (really nice) to be able to expand audio and have all seven of those show up instead of having to break apart. I don’t mind setting Roles before editing as you can select large chucks of media and do it very quickly and easily, I just need to be able to drill down more than FCPX allows for at the moment.
I am greatly looking forward to the “later this year” releases as I really like the functionality and capability that’s already built in, I just need more control and options. I don’t necessarily need tracks, I just need some “track” like functionality in that I need multiple and selectable discreet audio ‘channels’.
Jeremy
-
So wait…are you asking because you need to do this? Or are you asking as a rhetorical move?
Try SHIFT-D.
-
I’m not asking anything. I’m stating that if instead of ranges FCPX had proper in and out points there won’t be any need for Shift-D.
-
Did you try this? In an x audio tab, you can choose whether the audio is stereo, or mono, or surround. In mono, each piece of audio shows up as a check box and audiograph (not a true waveform). At that point you can listen to the audio and decide which one to use. It’s even clever enough that you can shift-click many clips and turn them to mono, stereo, surround simultaneously.
In this way, no audio ever needs to be broken apart from its sync video. If you, on the other hand, want to add audio to the attachment, then you can simply add the clip again, from the viewer-that’s-not-a-viewer and only use the audio.
-
[Michael Aranyshev] “There is a difference between understanding some concept and learning every workaround to use an implementation of a flawed concept for actual work.”
True.
There’s also some value in learning that what a particular individual has chosen to tag as “flawed” might be seen as tremendously beneficial to those who might be better able to separate their cognitive thinking from their emotional thinking and thereby resist projecting that same emotional thinking to the world as factual.
It’s “flawed thinking” for you.
It’s extremely useful new thinking for me.
As one small concrete example, I do a lot of voiceover work. Using the “flawed” magnetism of X, I can pre-cut a narration in the Event browser using favorites, drag them to the magnetic timeline, and have a near finished VO track significantly faster than I could do audio rough editing in Legacy.
And wonder of wonders, that pre-edit is stored in the EB and available for me to bring into multiple projects making me even more efficient over subsequent work.
Without magnetism, that workflow isn’t nearly as efficient. I know that because I’ve done it both ways now.
Your “flawed concept” – in the hands of someone who – instead of dismissing it based on a negative emotional response – has taken the time to look at a common task that it might improve has proved to me to be a major efficiently boost.
I’m sorry you can’t see this kind of thing. But I at least hope you’re content in your dismissive grumpiness – and that the same eventually helps you find solutions that work as smoothly for you as X works for me.
Peace.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
We have a saying the US: If pigs had wings, they’d fly.
Shakespeare has a sonnet that starts “A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.” The point is Ranges v In-Out-Points is a silly subjective semantic squabble, in my opinion, that I don’t care about. I wish you luck attacking windmills.
In the meantime, hit O on the clip, then SHIFT-D. And you’ll backedit. Or don’t.
🙂
-
Can I suggest you start quoting so we know who you are talking to? Select the text and hit ‘q’ and the cow will quote the text like this:
[Richard Herd] “Did you try this? In an x audio tab, you can choose whether the audio is stereo, or mono, or surround. In mono, each piece of audio shows up as a check box and audiograph (not a true waveform). At that point you can listen to the audio and decide which one to use. It’s even clever enough that you can shift-click many clips and turn them to mono, stereo, surround simultaneously.”
Yes, I know how it works, but I prefer to have all the audio in the timeline and choose which one to listen to and work on, and it is sometimes all of it, or just a bit of it, or sometimes I bounce to different channels in the same clip. I cannot do that by turning on and off complete channels in the X timeline. And then I need to be able to export those separately, which I can’t do right now unless I break apart and assign different Roles to each. Here’s a picture of an edit in FCP7, I just “can’t” do this in FCPX at least very easily:
FCPX works fine right now if you know that you will be using just one of those channels most of the time, but I need more flexibility than that and X doesn’t offer it currently.
[Richard Herd] “In this way, no audio ever needs to be broken apart from its sync video. If you, on the other hand, want to add audio to the attachment, then you can simply add the clip again, from the viewer-that’s-not-a-viewer and only use the audio.”
If you need to export stems, you need different Roles, and the only way to do that is by breaking apart.
Believe me, I want this all to work, its just not quite ‘there’ in FCPX yet, but the foundation seems to be laid for it to be possible. Hopefully, this type of multichannel audio editing is what Apple is working on.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up