Alban Egger
Forum Replies Created
-
[Bill Davis] “In the beginning nearly EVERYONE got FCP-X significantly wrong. We did that because it was nothing like we expected. It was significantly harder to understand it’s new way of approaching NLE operation than everyone thought. That’s, IMO, partly because it was so fundamentally different”
I – since day one – strongly disagree with that statement. It is not at all hard to understand and it is even much easier to grasp by newbies. I used Liquid Chrome and other tools (Edius, Speed Razor, Edit*, FCP) and FCPX seems to combine the good features of many of them while eliminating the bad ones of FCP7.
What is hard to understand? Once you know a Project is now called Event, and your sequence is the project you are set. From then on: Import, sort, edit, export.
The only feature that is hard to grasp for me is the colour-board. While it is great for quick fixes, I fight when using the vectorscope and want to shift the colour into a certain direction.
Did I edit from day one like today? No, of course not. Of course there are moments at first where you look for stuff or you are baffled by buggy-behaviour of the early release (boy do I hate it when I copy effects and forget I also wrote over the audio-compressors with the colour-look). So I know it is not finished and I am surprised how Apple handled the release. But the software´s set-up is extremely easy to understand, elegant to work with and will be changing the way people edit ON ALL LEVELS.
-
[Jason Jenkins] “You can use whatever folder structure makes sense to you, but with keywords, I don’t see the point in using that many folders.”
That probably depends on the project one is doing.
For example I almost always have 3 folders in my setup for documentary work; (the Folder name starts with AAA)
1. Import Reel or Camera#
2. Relative Time: Shooting day or this can be winter, summer etc or qualifying, training, final or rehearsal, stage act 1
3. the actual keyword collectionThe reason to use folders for me is to find quick reference in the alphabetic order.
E.g., if you have 60 keywords and 4 of them are the four seasons, you´ll keep fighting to find “winter” between the “windy” and the “winwinsituation”…..If you make a Folder AAAseasons, you will always find your winter on top of all keywords. I think if you have many keywords it is nice to have 6-10 that are general, but tight enough to allow to get a quick overview.I can see why some people want to have their ordering-system in a way so they can find packages of keywords that belong together in folders. so if you sort Mammals from Fish….it is faster with folders.
Of course in the above example it doesn´t make too much sense, because there are not too many keywords. But onc you have dozens of keywords it makes sense.
-
[Tim Vaughan] “One of my clients requested 7 different versions of one timeline, then all 8 of those translated in to 2 different languages with subtitles. So in all, I had 24 different movies. I suppose if one had to do that the “Great Apple Gadget Co.” way, it would be one long “story” LOL. It is an absolute joke of a professional software application.”
I don´t know if you tried FCPX, but if not I suggest you look at the tools “compound clip”, “audition”, “replace-edit” and “roles/sub-roles”.
These tools might help handling your project with 24 versions much faster and easier than in FCP7.
Which ones you use depends on your project (is multilingual only different VO and titles or is it also combining different actors speaking various languages). Both ways can easily be handled in FCPX. The only feature missing is color-coding clips to different languages (at least in 10.0.1 it´s not possible to have all chinese clips and titles in green and all spanish in yellow, for example).I have been part of a project with 12 languages (main language english, but also versions in 11 other languages where the german speaking people speak german in their version, the rest sticks to English. Then the same for spanish, italian, turkish etc. )
It was done in AVID (project was last year). Once FCPX came out I thought about this workflow and FCPX would be better IMO. So don´t underestimate it, only because it does things different. -
Same here Mark.
The sad point is many have read FCPX has “auto-this” and “auto-that” and has “share-to-youtube” and “share-to-email” as menu options and therefore scream “AMATEUR SOFTWARE!”.In reality you just turn them off and actually the share to youtube has been in compressor already and nobody screamed. Share to email is a great feature i use several times a week, because it is fast (uses the GPU and shoots out renders of 2 minutes 1080p-timelines as 2,5MB files in no time) and easy. Who says Pros need to have it hard? Who says these amateurish features are not helping in a pro-environment. Which PRO film is not teased on youtube? by major networks and studios?
As Craig said…..the flip-out screen came to the Pro-DSLRs via the consumer bridge-cams. And which pro is complaining? Actually which pro wasn´t asking for the feature? Not that he needed it every day, but there is the time when you want to make this overhead-groupshot and you only press once instead 10 times.
P.S.: I do use “optimize” and “copy into event” BTW. it is a automated backup-step and optimize actually only is done when the PC can´t handle the native format smoothly (which is usually only the case with h.264 files)
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Worst of all, it prioritizes clip collision avoidance at the expense of creative editing.”
Aha…..now that is a bold statement. Since when is creative editing a feature of a software? I need to find that filter that turns my work into something creative by default. It probably comes next to “applying in Magic Bullet Looks makes you a Colorist and your footage look like film”.
If there was something annoying and stopping when you did some creative work,but instead had to get back to fix limitations of FCP7, it was clip-collisions.
-
Is it possible you are on a FAT32 drive and the file that is written is larger than 4GB?
When you share to Vimeo or youtube you can adjust the size/quality. FCPX will write a file to the “Shared Movies” directory within your project.
For me all these shares have always worked as advertised.
-
Hey Tony,
I am a sports-producer myself and totally agree. It is so much advanced to FCP7 it is not even funny and it will be perfect in the sportsworld or any world that needs fast turnarounds.I have to disagree that the editors “loved” FCP7 in their trucks. FCP was in there because it was much cheaper than AVID. I have been around them and they all (like me) always found FCP to be a lame duck, but the cost-speed relation made it the choice of producers. After all the editors made it happen always…..nobody asked if another App would have been faster/easier, especially if that other App demanded higher costs in personal and hardware.
Without external connections FCPX is useless; I have one box equipped with FCP7 and Matrox´ gear just for Live output and Live recording. Once AJA/BlackMagic/Matrox comes out with a HD-SDI solution there will be tons of sales for them and FCPX. I am wondering if they right now talk to each other to come out simulatanuos, because whoever is second is losing big time in that market.
As you say, 3rd party will evolve FCPX. Not Apple. And I am OK with that. Some will need OMF out, some will need live-connectors……the modular set-up of FCPX will allow us to build the boxes that work for our workflow.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “7 is dead, definitely time to move along”
Amen.
-
[Darren Kelly] “Fact: Apple has not promised to make FCPX into a full NLE .”
Uhm….what?
I have produced several shows (26-minute documentaries) for national television in 1080p in FCPX. Some of them with 8-designated audiotracks.
Not a full NLE? What is a full NLE to you?
It imports, it edits, it grades, it outputs sound, it outputs films. Pretty much all an NLE needs and does. Me thinks you are trolling here and nosedive with that attempt.Did you actually use it (for more than one hour)?
-
Well, there are two major tools missing: multicam and external viewing. Interestingly these two are the ones Apple has pre-announced.
Many of the things asked for are either not possible as some want them (because this is X not 7) or are already possible via third party workaround (X27 -OMF out, Color etc) or are hopefully in development (audio needs tons of work).
For me 7 is dead unless it is an old project. I have also transferred a few legacy projects to X. The customer-wished changes are often minor and I just feel already more comfortable and quicker in X.What the majority of larger post-houses needs are hardware interfaces to decks and a industry adoption of FCPXML.