Andy Neil
Forum Replies Created
-
Well, sometimes it’s hard to see the area being affected by a mask when the changes are subtle. If you look at programs like resolve, when you create a power window, you can see the outline of the shape of the window to more easily position it. You could create an outline shape linked to the shape and size of your mask that is rigged to a button so you can see guidelines where your mask is.
I did something similar with a blur filter I created.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Thanks. I’ll check it out when I’m back at my X machine. As a suggestion, have you thought about creating a guide for the size, position, scale of the power window?
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Hey Simon, I downloaded the newest version, but can’t seem to make the OSC do anything. What is it supposed to control?
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
You know. I was perfectly polite and respectful in trying to respond to your initial post. I mistakenly thought that you were entertaining a speculative discussion on how multicam might work in FCPX with what is known about it’s current paradigm. What I received from you in return was altogether rude, presumptuous and snarky.
But you’re right, I do apologize for my last post. I fired it off quickly, and was unable to change or edit it afterward. But let’s not pretend that you have some moral high-ground in this matter.
I will leave you to your FCPX-bashing. I tire quickly from these types of threads.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
-
[TImothy Auld] “OK. I have allowed you to speculate including your speculation that all problems stem from my difficulty in seeing how this would work and not any problem inherent in the present system.”
That wasn’t speculation. You yourself said that perhaps you don’t understand. That wasn’t me.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[TImothy Auld] “Which is why I cannot wrap my mind around multicam working in any viable way with an inflexible, undisableable (that may the first instance of that particular word in the English language) magnetic timeline.”
First of all, it’s not the magnetic timeline that is the root of your issue. The fact that the timeline defaults to keeping clips together has nothing to do with what you’ve stated as your issues. What does seem to be the problem, is the way that FCPX embeds audio with video clips when captured or injested.
[TImothy Auld] “I do not understand how I can have say six angles all with different audio (as in coming from different mics) and designate one of those angles to supply the audio for all of those angles. Until it becomes necessary to use one of the other audio angles on a given clip or clips.”
If I were to speculate for a moment:
Imagine a multiclip as similar to a compound clip in which all the video angles are layered atop one another, and all the audio is as well. Then perhaps the audio for each angle takes on a Role as the audio for that angle. Which then via shortcut or menu item can be swapped and traded between video angles.
[TImothy Auld] “Or how, if audio and video are connected to one another, I would grab a sound effect from a completely different multiclip that is forty-five minutes down the timeline and move it back those forty-five minutes for use with another multiclip.”
This can be done already by simply selecting the area where the sound is and inserting the audio only (OPT+3) in the timeline. If the audio in a multiclip is defined by roles or by angle, I don’t see it as too difficult to choose which audio you want.
[TImothy Auld] “Or how I would use the video only from one multiclip over the audio only of another unrelated multiclip.”
Again, this can be done with the video only, audio only selections. However, I agree that it is imperative that each angle’s audio be discretely available in the multiclip.
Your difficulty in seeing how this works with FCPX’s paradigm isn’t unique. You’ve probably hit upon the reason that multicam wasn’t an initial feature in FCPX’s release.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Unfortunately, the reason hollywood movies look so much better on SD is because they are shot on 2K, 4K or film so the footage they are working with is of a higher caliber than HD, and they use hardware encoders that are extremely expensive.
Consumers and prosumers make do with software encoders. I tend to follow Mark’s method myself when converting HD to SD.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Gary Huff] “Because if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about what your idea could be like, it’s not hard to realize how it wouldn’t be all that useful. There are plenty ideas that are almost immediately apparent that they don’t work in their current form.”
Actually, after thinking about it for awhile, I think voice activation could have a pivotal role in editing. Not for making cuts and trims and all that; I don’t think it’d be good for that at all. But for searches and media organization it could be quite a time-saver and really powerful.
“Show me all my two-shots”
“Hide all my 2k footage”
“Show me clips labeled as ‘exteriors'”
“Hide any clips that have been cut into the sequence”
For editing, I believe the future is in two-handed multi-touch desktop pads. I envision a world where you can edit with gestures because editing, for me anyway, is a very visual endeavor. I don’t think I could ever edit effectively with voice commands alone. It would be like playing chess without seeing the board. You can do it, but what the hell does “pawn to Queen’s bishop 3” look like?
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
If you pulled the video off a website, then that video is progressive not interlaced. You’ve probably got FCPX introducing interlacing into the mix which explains the poor results. Put the footage into a progressive format like 29.97p or 30p and re-export.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com