[Aindreas Gallagher]

here’s how you get in the moment.

you need cougar roar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-RLqLx1iYI

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

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

I actually think no – there was a flip over point. I could be mad but I recall the torrent of reviews brought to a stop with a current version rest. i remember looking at it and shrugging the wee bit.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

didn’t they use a non-existent software revision to reset the reviews and refresh the ratings early on?

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

Nah fair enough, I was going conspiracy OTT there.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

mmmm.

Lawrence has a bit of a point there.

you stepped away a little carefully in your response.

sure don’t work too hard, just re-set the timeline view for clip connections and re-grab the frame?

No Work at all!

Sure go on Jeremy. show those clip connections. It can’t look that bad right?

dare.

dare.

dare.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Jeremy Garchow] ” it’s the creating of all the secondary story lines to get dissolves/wipes on the connected clips.”

pivoting swiftly to his various arguments andy said…

jeremy, muchos respect – but – sure just read that line again to yourself –

” it’s the creating of all the secondary story lines to get dissolves/wipes on the connected clips.”

does that make any sense? why. are. we. doing. this?

[Jeremy Garchow] “Making the audio into secondary storylines brings audio fade fuctionality back with a quickness.”

again bud, doesn’t this feel like a very brittle, easily broken paradigm? we end up doing a variety of things to reassert basic, basic decision space.

honest to god – does this thing FCPX feel well thought through?

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

fair play. this is more like it – good stuff and game on.

I reckon possibly, looking at the original, that the stacking is a bit sedimentary as a live edit interacting with final post, with untouched original edits at the base, and then round trip assets and gfx iterating above but either way –

this is the first blood instance i have seen anywhere?, of skill/timeline situation matching between the edit platforms that has not been managed by apple. (in their now infamous NAB demo screenshot comparison moment)

being.. a tad bitchy for a minute.. do you find you need to enclose vertical layers within secondary storylines to this degree all the time? doesn’t that hint to conceptual shortcomings in their conception?

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

you left out “profound irritation” bill, I’m not sure what it’s the opposite of, but one or two may be harbouring that emotion…

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

you know that’s a really great idea – all rounds get full screen captures from each competitor, would make no end of interesting watching to see how a committed professional on each software package gets their business done, both will have points to prove… soft of layer tennis for the FCPX wars?

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Walter Soyka] “Maybe the FCPX primary storyline’s functionality is a bit overloaded. It seems meant to both drive the story and provide the foundation in time for the rest of the edit. This is probably apt for narrative. Here, though, the VO is driving the story and the soundtrack is providing the foundation in time.

It’s not insurmountable, but it strikes me as a bit awkward. Am I really just thinking about this wrong?”

no I really don’t think you are. I think it exposes the lack of thought apple gave to the variety of real world implementations their reductive metaphor would have to meet – the primary storyline is limited in its successful application – the idea that you have to fill it completely with VO or music video audio to stabilise the edit is insane. Then you’re up above trying to edit the actual visuals in connected clips with no transitions, (what if you’ve cut the audio down so on the primary storyline the music track is composed of multiple edits? what happens when you want to re-edit the audio track? aren’t there connected clips hanging off it?) or maybe you’re pushing stuff into secondary storylines …dear sweet god… because the metaphor is so overly simplistic and reductive, complex or non-standard scenarios become insanely poorly handled really fast. This isn’t “fighting the software” as andrew would put it, it’s a pretty seriously use simplistic piece of thinking on apple’s part.

there are unintended consequences everywhere. I honestly think this software is critically flawed. The minute I heard someone saying – just fill the primary storyline with the music track – I just sort of laughed weirdly to myself.

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