Andreas Kiel
Forum Replies Created
-
As said above, all the marker types we were used to are gone with X.
You can use the digitalRebellion tool https://www.digitalrebellion.com/promedia/ to get chapters into an exported movie within seconds.– Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
-
As Noah said:
… (and FCP X decides they match)…
I still haven’t figured out when and why.
Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
Does anyone know if the tagging info for clips can be exported from FCPX in some form of vanilla data file? (such as XML, or tab delineated?)
Simple answer: No way!
Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
Simon said
The difference in time taken between rendering the timeline (alarmingly slow) and simply exporting an unrendered timeline (remarkably fast) is very dramatic, to the extent that not rendering is clearly the most desirable option in most cases.
This is true. We have made a test with subtitles (many people with many different machines and configurations). Rendering the timelime is really slow and can be even about 100!!! times slower than in legacy.
So as Simon you adviced: don’t render the timeline while working, only render automatically on export.Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
I like the image quality as well and it seems to be more reliable than before. I love that you don’t need to render while working on an edit, that save a lot of time – though you’ve to render anyway if you want to export.
I love all the search options and roles. I love that you are do ‘Find/Replace’ in titles, that’s a real huge timesaver for projects with really many titles. And I love many more things.
But there are many things I don’t understand the way they are implemented.
Let’s take the example for why FCPX is ‘professional’ Michael Sanders gave:A client asked me to change to all the slates (about 10) on a video this week, they decided they did, after all want their logo on them..
In total honesty it was no more than 10 mins from starting the process to finishing it.
Quickly went into Motion and added the logo and saved this back to the FCP X titles. Then I simply dropped the re made slide over the existing ones and FCP X copied the text and transitions over.
Job done.
I wonder where it’s written that that’s not Professional?
If that have been 10 totally different slates (by design and appearance, text and settings) it’s a reasonable amount of time, but nothing which is super fast.
If those had been all the same design but just a different text, it’s very slow – 1 minute per title. That would have worked in legacy version of FCP in the same amount of time or even faster.Let me tell you why.
With FCP legacy and Motion legacy you had been able to create your own Motion Templates which had been available in FCP, this feature was rarely used by editors from my experience. Also the parameters couldn’t be published by the user, publishing was fixed to text, size and tracking.With FCPX and Motion 5 you are able to create Motion Templates as well. But now with more custom publishing options – which is definitively very cool (see Simon Ubsdell’s example). Compared to FCP legacy this works much better in the UI as you can search for your custom title instead of using the ugly and time consuming popup stuff from the old FCP versions.
So the difference is nothing which makes me say “Wow” as long as I’m organized! It’s just ‘cool’ – nothing else.
If I would start a project where titles, subtitles and slates are used, I would made some short roughs for myself, decide what matches for those and present it to the client. The client decides what to use and we start. Before starting editing I would make duplicates of all the titles, subtitles and slates within a custom folder and go from there. If I need additional ones the dupe will go into the custom(ers) folder as well. That’s the same with legacy and X.Now with this example Micheal Sanders gave it’s more or less the same with both versions: in FCP legacy you clicked one of those titles and selected ‘open in Editor’, with X you control click the title and choose ‘Open in Motion’ (that again only works, if you’ve done the ‘dupe homework’ before).
In both versions you do your changes (like adding a logo) and save. The stuff will be updated for even hundreds or thousand of titles in a few seconds.
Beside the parameter publishing there are other differences between legacy and X. With the rough explanation given above there is one big difference between those when saving the template! In legacy the Save only saves/changes the selected title – that can be good or bad. You had to republish/replace it again to add the changes to all titles of this group. With X the Save command will automatically apply to all templates affected.So let me resume (and give some advices)
The handling of Motion Templates didn’t change that much – it’s been somehow easier with the new version. And it didn’t become anymore professional in a standard environment.
The main difference between the versions is that you can work with X without rendering.
With X more people got aware of this nice feature, but are not really aware of the options and risks IMHO.Here the advices:
Never do what Micheal Sanders did (doesn’t mean he’s not a professional – no offense at all. I’ve to learn a lot of things as well).
If you replace a template the way he described – at least as I understood – any custom changes in X will be overwritten. If you don’t have the same amount of text entries in the changed template, you will loose text as well (same as in legacy).If you have used the ‘original’ templates in other projects and change it the template will be changed everywhere – again that might be good or bad.
So some thoughts upfront on how to work with copies is very very important and could save your ‘life’ sometimes.The bad thing about working with duplicates is that the titles got more and more cluttered in the interface – both for legacy and X. So think about the names of dupes as well. X gives you big chance to organize better.
My 2 cents
Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
Simon,
Nice work. But you should disable the background – that will make the templates more flexible.
Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
[Herb Sevush] “Bill, your post is crazier than Andreas’s“
What was crazy on my last post????????
My name is Andreas and I try to get the best out of FCPX.
Andreas 🙂
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
Steve,
If you say:
FCPX is certainly faster, I can say this because I’ve been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP for years so I am qualified to make the comparison.
I could say:
FCPX might be faster in some cases, I can say this because I’ve been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP since first beta so I am qualified to make the comparison.
Andreas 🙂
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
Hmm,
I cant’ use FCPX for the few real editing jobs per year, it simply doesn’t match the needs I have. I can’t do it with PPro, we have tried Avid and Media 100 – didn’t match my needs as well. Haven’t tried others. FCP in it’s later versions had been a good editor for ‘rough’ cuts. I finalized all the stuff in AE – and I still use FCP7 and AE for my jobs.
Machines go faster every day, but as mentioned before the things which matter most quite often (maybe mostly) are the setup and organization of workflows. And that’s from my opinion is the most important thing.
In old days when German Bertelsmann hold a lot of shares of AOL I was always asked to make the promos for press and one for the CEBIT show for the large screen. They always said “it’s the last time you do it” when they called mr two weeks before the show – having no idea about a script, no idea about style, no idea about music etc. Only some numbers which they want to show were given.
We had been a very small production house, but had been well organized. That time we used FileMaker Pro to organize and ‘keywording’ our own stuff. Was a really huge data base. So compared to the big guys with the big machines and the big software, we were much better organized. We were able to develop an idea, search for stock, maybe quickly improvise some additional shooting and based on the idea let some people create a kind of ‘sound floor’. We always got the job – till the german company sold their shares from AOL.
These crazy jobs could be an example where FCPX could shine (for some jobs). Keywording and Batch-Metadata-Change are excellent done. Preview is mostly real time without the need of rendering – though at a certain time of point you will need to render.The example Brian Mulligan posted before could be a good example for FCPX & Motion – if you’re organized. Can be done with FCPX, if you’re prepared for that kind of job.
Philip Hodgetts would be right if he says “two times faster up to four times faster” and add the kind of project where it applies. I could give some different results.
I do understand Jeremy when he says it’s working well.
I don’t understand Aindreas comments – in many cases.Anyway FCPX as now more or less is a 0.9 version (like many other apps when they change features, handling etc. – fix some bugs and add new ones). I know about that – as sometimes I write some apps.
So conclusion (from my side):
Same as Brian Mulligan: “I know I could not use it for my purposes.”
Different from the above: I do care about FCPX, do send bug reports and feature requests – more people should do that.Again my 2 cents (maybe all the “2 cents” which are given here should be sent to a real bank account, which could be used for some charity purposes)
Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools