-
Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
-
Work it out? It really isn’t that complicated, if you have programmed in the automation function for one keyframe then it’s hardly any work to make it work for multiple keyframes, you can’t be talking much more than a few lines of code, ceratinly one basic procedure linking to whatever code/procedures they are currently using… this isn’t a case of working it out, it’s a case of chucking out poorly tested code and using developers who don’t use the application. I can’t see how anything else explains it… I have just been trying to use the keyframing to change the appearance of text over a duration of a few seconds. It will add the keyframes, though not display them in the timeline, but only the first set keyframe will cause any change. The second keyframe only displays when you delete the previous keyframe… now if you can’t keyframe the text, why have the ability to add the keyframes? This software is a 1-2+ years old now and still a stinking heap of BETA crap on so many levels and on so many features I could write an entire book on the subject.
I’ve suffered this application for a long while in the assumption that it was going to improve, but really it doesn’t, and the preferential elements of it that I have stuck to it for are seeming less and less worth the eternal hassle. Adobe Premier is calling…. I wouldn’t recommend anyone to learn this software, best off not wasting your time getting into something that is never going to be made into a solid application. Apple have lost it, spend less time of the effing iPhones and get back to things that are actually useful in more ways than just being a pointless distraction. Apple is just money money money, well developed innovation is really in the back seat.
2.4ghz 12 core Mac Pro 2012, 32GB DDR3 DIMM Registered ECC, Mavericks OS X 10.9
-
You guys are feckin’ brilliant! Three cheers.
-
5 years later, a whole range of amazing new features and functionality introduced to FCPX.
And keyframing is still complete shite.
What a joke.
-
[Matt Kemp] “5 years later, a whole range of amazing new features and functionality introduced to FCPX.
And keyframing is still complete shite.
What a joke.”
Definitely still lame.
Also definitely still NOT getting in the way of X’s adoption by large swaths of general editors very much, based on the public sales evidence.
So we just keep waiting and hoping the bigger and more important stuff that DOES seem to drive tool adoption for X – eventually gets to a place where more agile key framing becomes something Apple feels like addressing.
Until then, X editors have all learned to do it, when it’s required, with the very modest tools we have.
Such is life.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
Interesting because I don’t see how much better Premiere is on this subject. Maybe I don’t use key frames enough. So if it’s so “shite”, do tell. Just putting that out there has no meaning. Tell us why.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
I do agree, and for the most part it hasn’t stopped me using FCPX for 90% of my work.
I guess it’s just frustrating. Having mastered the magnetic timeline and all the other functions which make FCPX unique, I see it’s power and potential. But then these ridiculous amateur oversights (like keyframing, and to a lesser degree, colour correction, amongst others) just stop it being a really amazing piece of software truly worthy of pro use.
It’s so close, but so far away..
Imagine if we had all the best bit of X and all the best bits of 7 in one package. It would be an incredible piece of software.
As it is, using FCPX always leaves a bad taste in my mouth one way or another, whereas Premierem even though it’s slower and in a lot of ways feels more old fashioned than X, gives me the warm and fuzzies because it makes me feel I’m working with pro kit.
-
[Matt Kemp] “a lesser degree, colour correction, amongst others)”
Latest CC tools look pretty “pro” to me.
[Matt Kemp] ” truly worthy of pro use.
It’s so close, but so far away..”
For you maybe, for all the “Pro” FCPX users I know – it’s very close.
Is it perfect – no but saying it’s not worthy of “Pro” use is ridiculous
[Matt Kemp] “gives me the warm and fuzzies because it makes me feel I’m working with pro kit.”
Well if it makes you feel like a “Pro” then good for you 🙂
-
Yeah I guess I should’ve known that last post was going to generate that kind of response.
Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, the FCPX apologists can kid themselves as much as they like, but this is not a serious product, and won’t be for some years. Like I said, I am a committed FCPX user since the first version. I edit everything from promos to feature length docs, to VR video, and there are things I love about it, primarily it’s speed of ingest, edit and output.
But the multitude sub-standard features such crappy keyfaming, colour correction and the ridiculous iMovie effects and title functions keep this at the prosumer level, which as far as I can tell is exactly what Apple intended. Sure, I’ve loaded up on all the third party extensions which help a lot (Color Finale for example), but as far as I’m concerned any app which relies on third party plugins to bring it up to par with Premiere or other NLEs doesn’t deserve that much credit.
Sure, pros can use it, because they’re pros. But the death of 7 and inception of X lowered the bar for high end video editing on a Mac. It was called iMovie Pro since day one, and despite the new features, it’s still just an (admittedly greatly) improved iMovie Pro.
This isn’t a statement of fact, this is my opinion as someone who edits video every day. You can agree or disagree, it really makes no difference to me. I’m no Premiere evangelist or FCPX-basher. One last time to reiterate, I use it every day. But I’m not suckering myself into believing it’s the best thing since sliced bread. It isn’t.
-
[Matt Kemp] “Imagine if we had all the best bit of X and all the best bits of 7 in one package. It would be an incredible piece of software.
As it is, using FCPX always leaves a bad taste in my mouth one way or another, whereas Premierem even though it’s slower and in a lot of ways feels more old fashioned than X, gives me the warm and fuzzies because it makes me feel I’m working with pro kit.”
Hard to argue with any of this.
It’s largely how an editor “feels” about the software. Each has plusses and minuses. Which of those lights up YOUR emotions determines which path will feel best to you.
I value the feeling that I’m moving into what I suspect will be a different digital video future – as rapidly as possible – and I’m very willing to give up lots of “comfort” in order to achieve that.
Another editor will much more highly value the “warm and fuzzies” (as you term it) of familiarity.
It’s the central polarizing principal of all of this, I suspect.
And it’s as natural (on both sides), as breathing.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Matt Kemp] “But the multitude sub-standard features such crappy keyfaming, colour correction and the ridiculous iMovie effects and title functions keep this at the prosumer level, which as far as I can tell is exactly what Apple intended. Sure, I’ve loaded up on all the third party extensions which help a lot (Color Finale for example), but as far as I’m concerned any app which relies on third party plugins to bring it up to par with Premiere or other NLEs doesn’t deserve that much credit.”
Just curious, why did you mention Color Finale, rather than the re-build of all the color tools in 10.4?
Seems to me you would have concentrated on the stuff INSIDE X, rather than on the external plug ins?
What, precisely is “crappy” about the 10.4.1 (current) color tools in X?
Or maybe for clarity – what do the competitors – either Premiere or AVID do – that X doesn’t – in terms of grading inside the NLE environment?
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up