Adam White
Forum Replies Created
-
I don’t need much convincing to try an alternative to After Effects. I hate using it. That’s not a reflection on the quality of the software (it’s a very accomplished/powerful tool) – it’s more a reflection of the fact that my mind simply doesn’t work in the way it wants me to and that leads to constant frustrations. And I’ve been using it for ages. I don’t think it’ll ever “click” into place as it should at this stage.
-
Once I’ve got really comfortable with X I will possibly give it a second look. Tried a bit of Motion alongside FCP7 a couple years ago but ended up giving up and dipping back into After Effects (which I wasn’t exactly fluent in but had a basic understanding at least).
-
Starting to think X and Avid are the best options available at the moment. Both obviously very different – but they each seem to do what they do best very well indeed.
Just did a short film in Avid – loved it. Can’t think of a better tool for that kind of job.
Likewise, have been testing out X for some short form stuff and it seems to fly with that kind of edit. Still getting to grips with it but I like what I’ve seen so far. Particularly love the range of finishing tools, I would say they are essential for smaller budget stuff that I do where as the editor I have to be master of numerous trades. Beats going out to After Effects for quick little tasks!
-
Cool. Thanks for the input.
-
Background transcoding was a great new feature in MC7. Have made use of it a few times with good results. As I said in another post, my ageing hardware handicaps it a little but it still works and what I like about it is that you can at least begin the process of organising your rushes right away as opposed to having to wait around for a transcode to complete.
When I’m super busy it can be really helpful to dip into a new project for an hour or two in-between other things and get all set for an edit to begin later. It takes away the burden of planning your transcoding time around your day so you’re not wasting time that could be spent working.
-
Hopefully Steve. I’m sure I’m not the only person out there to have thought about this.
To be fair to Apple, there record of updating FCPX has actually been pretty impressive so far. Some of the smaller updates have been what have helped me get comfortable with the software after initially being aghast (dual monitors for example, huge for me, can’t imagine not having them now they are back). That in mind there’s no reason to assume they won’t add this little thing back in.
-
For me, working natively isn’t really an option. My current hardware is a DOG when working with native files (2009 iMac). Especially those from 7Ds (which I have to work with a lot). The performance I get is laggy and unacceptable for editing with. Fine for marking selects/organising whilst transcoding goes on in the background (something I love about both FCPX and Media Composer 7), but when it gets to the nitty gritty of cutting it drives me crazy. So native editing is not something I want to do. I’ve tried it with both FCPX and PP, and whilst FCPX seems to handle it a bit better neither is really acceptable. Avid was probably worse still.
I’m aware that is almost certainly time to upgrade my system, but I had been holding out to see what happened with the Mac Pro. And frankly, when working in ProRes I have no complaints about performance at all. If it ain’t broke…
So for now working with 422 is fine, but ultimately I would like the option for LT for the as discussed space savings, and I have also noticed that the performance I get does seem to be smoother still with LT as opposed to standard 422.
So that’s my reasoning. And this was in no way intended to be a rant against FCPX more broadly. As I’ve said, I am giving the software a fair hearing and being as open minded as possible. This is all just part of getting under the hood a bit.
-
That was pretty much my thinking about the whole thing.
After originally being pretty appaled by FCPX (a lot of that had to do with the launch) I’ve taken a second look recently. There are things I like about it. There are certain edits that I do that I think could be done faster in X than anything else out there once I get to grips with it. I think there is no doubt that what has been built is potentially an incredibly powerful foundation for the future.
But I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to ask for a simple transcode option to be added, and why some people seem so dead against it. LT works great. I understand not everyone will want to use it, but for those that it works well for, why deprive them of the option?
Some will probably disagree, but I don’t think I’m being backwards in thinking that this would be a nice option to have. Seems like it would be super simple to implement, too.
-
Thanks for your response, Andy. And I certainly hear what you’re saying with about working with smart people – in the past I have had the misfortune of working with some not-so-smart people (sadly, haven’t we all?)
And the mis-match thing could potentially be a problem, as I do sometimes get notes from Producers, or even DPs/Camera Ops, who have in their possession a copy of all the original camera media and request specific shots/takes be included. They’ll only refer to said clips by the original name assigned to it on the camera – so it’ll be “can we use MVI_#### to replace the establishing shot currently used”. So in that scenario I just need to find said clip quickly and insert. Being able to search for it right in FCPX and have it turn up right away would be a big timesaver (I used the search function in FCP7 in a similar way countless times).
Thanks again for all your input – it’s all very helpful.
-
Thanks Jeremy, that’s good to know too.
I’ll likely do some tests with this and other methods mentioned to get a workflow that works best for me.
As a standard practise, I always copy the entire contents of any camera cards onto the hard drive I’m working on (I have a sub-folder marked CARD MASTERS within any project’s folder, so I know that I can always get back to the original media exactly as it came off the camera if ever I need to) – that in mind, FCPX pointing to content on a card that is no longer connected shouldn’t ever happen because it will always point to the carbon copy I placed on the Hard Drive.
Thanks to all for the input from all – it’s really helpful in getting to grips with media management in FCPX. At first it seemed to me as though it works in much the same way as in FCP7, but there are clearly some important differences.