[Alban Egger]

[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. “

Suggestion: break apart, and instantly create a compound clip of it again. Now you can step into this clip and fix the audio as needed. You can treat every track your way. If you have several clips just put them all into a compound and treat this section of the timeline that way.
You might also want to add roles to the audio-tracks.

Once done, collapse the compound clip and you have a nice block of finished audio.

In the end break apart the compound clip so you have the roles visible for outputting the different stems.

I have yet to have a sync-problem after 1 year of FCPX in an 8-track universe. Knock on wood…..

[Alban Egger]

[Michael Aranyshev] “.In and out points allow for backtime edits. Ranges do not. That’s why they had to add a modifier key – to override the normal behavior. When did they think about backtime edits? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing.
“

Ahem….in FCP7 and I believe other NLEs I need a modifier to drag audio-disconnected from the video for a J-/L-cut. When did they think about J-/l-cuts? Long after most of the app design was in place. What does it mean? The have no idea about editing.

How does a modifier bother you? FCP7 was full of modifiers. FCPX understands in many occasions what you want to do without telling it. In FCP7 you need a lot more keystrokes or clicks to achieve the same results. A modifier is nothing else than a keyboard-shortcut. And in FCP7 I had to press “ssss” and “rr”. In FCPX one stoke is enough or often not even needed.

You say they have no idea about editing, when you mean they didn´t make a program that fits your conditioned workflow.

[Alban Egger]

[Jeremy Garchow] “[Scott Sheriff] “OK, the subject of this thread is “Thoughts from the departed?”, so is that you? Have you departed, or moved on?
Or are you here just to cheerlead for apple? If so, start a new thread.”

He won’t tell you, but he’s moved on: https://fcpxmegatest.blogspot.com/2011/07/using-peakbreak-as-our-first-fcp-x...”

Haha….I am not afraid in telling you….yes I moved on to FCPX.

And if Scott thinks my opinions are not facts…..well…the thread is a direct question about our subjective feelings. I never claim what I say are facts. I don´t write it into wikipedia. I throw it here up for discussion. But the opinions of FCP7 users are just as fact-less as mine.

To think the client doesn´t care about 32-bit is very short-term thought. Every render process costs money. FCPX and CS6 are spinning FCP7 around and depending on the size of your project 64-bit can mean hours or days.

quote Scott Sheriff: Tracks are a step backwards?
LOL! That sounds very much like these new 5D shooters that think lights and tripods are outdated, or a step backwards.
quote end

……but Scott, what if the trackless is like putting a 5D on a dolly or jib? Ever thought that trackless could be better. Trackless could free your workflow from the restrictions of tracks. Sure there are moments when a steady tripod shot is needed. But then there are many shots that are so much better on steady cam/dolly/crane. There are moments when you might feel the need to have all spanish titles on one track, so you can turn them on/off and have a visual reference of where they are. But roles in FCPX does it just as effective.

And it is a fact FCP7 is outdated. The workflow might still work for many. There are still people using Media100 successful. But I am not a hip-teen who thinks I have to follow the newest hype. In that case I would be using CS6 on Win7 or a Linux machine. I have used NLEs for 15 years now and a few have won me instantly with their approach: Speed Razor, Fast (later Liquid), FCPX. Not FCP7….FCP7 always seemed like a hybrid to me: wanted to serve the tape-world (like Fast) and the tapeless (like Edius).

FCPX is not finished yet. No MXF workflow, several features missing (like copy/paste of certain attributes), audio-mixing…).

But it has features that are in my world already daily necessities to keep working as I got used to the last 12 months: skimming, auditions, magnetic timeline, keyword-bins, one-button conform-speed shortcut (we over crank a lot in our sports films), project browser etc etc.

No NLE is perfect. All do something better. All need an editor who uses them properly. For me it is FCPX at the moment (despite the lack of a thunderbolt-MacPro).

[Alban Egger]

I can’t believe there are so many still using FCP7. I just had to use it on a project on equipment of a network that uses it still. After a year of FCPX it is such a huge step backwards to 32-bit, tracks, unusable binstructure.
I suggest you take a long look at Avid, FCPX or CS6, because FCP7 is outdated soon.

[Alban Egger]

My Crystal ball says YES…new update with the new MacPro and iMac.

We get:
– “Send to Motion” roundtrip
– AudioMixer
– copy-paste attributes
– monitoring is out of beta

and I would like to get a feature where we can export a compound-clip (so you can export portions of a project)

[Alban Egger]

If you make a compound clip or secondary storyline and connect them to the first frame of the timline it stays locked that way with the connection.
The difference is the secondary storyline behaves like the primary with ripple mode.

[Alban Egger]

Craig,
the scary thought is……..

….we haven´t even touched it after 11 months. I find something new almost every day in FCPX´s workflow and I haven´t even done much compositing in it………it is a massive tool.

[Alban Egger]

Matt,
for regular people FCPX will IMO be easier to learn with a short introduction than any other NLE.

The import process is similar and wether you use bins or keywords won´t matter. When you tick the “COPY to EVENT” on import you also create an automatic backup of your original clips.

Editing: the magnetic timeline and trackless workflow is so much better for people who just want to create a “simple timeline” of their images.

I have already two clients who installed FCPX in their offices for their in-house stuff. They are absolute layman in terms of editing and they couldn´t be happier. A tool like FCP7 or CS6 would definitely overwhelm them. It is not rocket-science, but they need more knowledge to do basic stuff than FCPX, while FCPX needs some knowledge if you want to go deeper.

BTW they didn´t call it iMovie Pro , because it isn´t. It has one big feature from iMovie: skimming…other than that they are totally different. I cannot make anything in iMovie. I hate it. But in FCPX I ffel home 😀

[Alban Egger]

U need a device from AJA, Blackmagic or Matrox

[Alban Egger]

Herb,
I totally agree some of the features you want are only in FCP7. Some might be in CS6 and Avid. Few of those are in FCPX the way you are used to them. But as I did in other discussions with you 😉 I could point at just as many features in FCPX that are by now just as vital to me (and many others) that are in the FCPX paradigm more important than tracks and sync-markers (I have yet to miss the sync marker once in 11 months! it simply is not needed in FCPX)

You are absolutely right the tracks give a better visual overview. Maybe not for the initial editor, but when someone else comes to the project later. But to people who are used to FCPX and set the projects up properly with roles, it is very easy to get an overview with the roles and the item list. Not the same quick overview, takes a minute more, but a new editor is up to speed fast just like in FCP7, despite the missing tracks.

The inability of copying and pasting certain effects is the biggest problem of FCPX….you are absolutely right. That is a huge missing tool in FCPX and I wonder what takes them so long to bring it in.

The bad news is: FCP7 is legacy….nobody will come its way. Everyone will move away from it. Maybe FCP7 was the best NLE for its paradigm and couldn´t be improved (other than 64-bit) and for the sakes of generating new sales the software-giants move along without the need for moving along. I am happy Apple did move to X, but I understand if someone just doesn´t need anything else than FCP7. But I don´t hear only good things from CS6 and I definitely don´t hear only good things from AVID and I have a lot of bad things to say about FCP7…..so it will always be a compromise and I wish you luck finding the perfect replacement when you need to find it.