[Andy Neil]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Obviously there is no good reason from the point of view of most aspects of functionality that it’s not competing at this level by this late point in its development, but perhaps we have to face the fact that some indefinable spark is missing.
“

I don’t think it’s anything to do with FCPX at all. As a tool, it’s remarkably capable. It’s just that it’s rollout pissed editors off so much that they many made their mind about it and haven’t considered it since. And of those that have considered it or tried it, there’s a portion that can’t seem to alter how they think about putting a story together. They’re entrenched in their mindset.

I find a lot of my peers that I talk to about X are still carrying around the perception that it just can’t cut in a professional environment. They’re legitimately surprised when I tell them it has the best multicam on the market in my opinion, that it’s leagues faster than other NLEs at the rough cut stage and major structural changes to a cut are ridiculously simpler. The most grudgingly complimentary thing I hear about it (before I’ve talked to them about why I like it) is that it’s good at organizing media. So, in the intervening years that FCPX has been on the market, most of the people I work with are still perceiving it from it’s initial release. This isn’t a fault of FCPX, it’s the fault of prevailing amounts of carmudgeonry in the editing community.

FCPX is finding increased use in a lot of professional spaces, but unlike FCP7, editors who can cut FCPX can’t be pulled from the Avid pool. They’re too different. So while FCP7 could insert itself into high profile studio films because it used the same paradigm as Avid, FCPX doesn’t have that luxury. It’s the most complete NLE without a monthly cost attached to it which means it can find work in smaller, nimbler operations, but studios aren’t concerned with that. They’re concerned with the talent pool of editors available to them and pool of FCPX capable feature editors with credits who also cut FCPX is small and will remain small until they decide to pick it up on their own.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

Thanks Neil. That’s actually what I’m currently doing. To give you a little more context. I’m creating box effects to showcase several clips in the frame at once. Using PIP with a border (promoted 3D) is clunky because you have to crop each image as it flies on and if you only want a white border on say one side of a clip, you have to zoom into the clip to obscure the other sides (because the border will always show up all around). Also, it makes shot replacement hell because you basically have to redo all the animation because the crop and position keyframes won’t be the same on two different clips and with more than 2 clips, it becomes unwieldy.

My solution was to create black and white mattes using the paint tool for the boxes, and then on top of everything, use the paint tool to make little white bars to create the “borders”. They can be animated once, and then applied to multiple sections of the edit and all I have to do is step in and replace the shots. It kinda looks like this (using simulated footage):

The problem with building and animating anything with the paint effect is that there doesn’t seem to be a way to stop the keyframes from being “elastic”. That is, when I subclip the effect to my bin and apply it elsewhere to other footage that is longer than the original effect, the keyframes are stretched out and the animation is slower. I’m trying to see if there’s a way to default all animations to fixed keyframes like you can in the advanced keyframe area of the effect editor. Does that make sense?

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

After Effects isn’t an option. This needs to be done inside Avid.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Greg Ball] “So in my case, would just duplicate a Snapshot so I can keep the original, then just label the Snapshot as Version 2?
“

That would not help you. The snapshot should be v1, and then you continue with your main project as v2. Think of the snapshot as a…picture. You don’t want anything to change in v1 in case you need to go back.

[Greg Ball] “I really don’t see any point in duplicating a project when everything I change in the duplicated project will be reflected in the original. Thoughts?”

You’re missing a key element in understanding the difference I think. Things you change in the duplicate sequence DO NOT CHANGE the original sequence. A duplicate sequence works like a duplicate file in almost any other program.

What we’re talking about, and why you have the option of the snapshot in the first place, is because multiclips and compound clips are special little animals. Changes to a master multiclip in the BROWSER (not inside a timeline) will ripple into any sequence that you edited it into.

Maybe think of it like a river with a fork in it. If you add red dye in the river before the fork, you end up with two red streams. But if you add red to one stream after the fork, you only have one red stream. Does that make sense?

Regardless, if you don’t have multiclips or compounds in your work, you can safely use duplicates, although there’s no reason you CAN’T use the snapshot feature. Just make sure that your snapshot is labeled as your older version. That’s how changes remain frozen.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

Duplicating is usually fine for most situations. Snapshot is specifically when you’re worried about making changes to a clip that pushes changes out to each instance (eg: a multiclip or compound clip).

For example, if you do an edit and then later open the multiclip and adjust the color for one of the angles, that change will be reflected in all the instances of that angle in your sequence. Or if you create a compound clip with layered sound effects and decide to turn off one of the sounds, every instance of that compound clip in your sequence will now reflect that change.

If you duplicate a sequence and make any of the above changes, those changes will be reflected in BOTH sequences because there is still a parent/child relationship between multiclips and compounds in any sequences you’ve edited them into.

This is NOT true for snapshots. If you snapshot a sequence, then it will remain exactly the same in the snapshot even if you make changes to a compound or multiclip.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

The container is the grey bar above the the purple title. Select that.

If you want to trim the in point of the title instead of just moving it, you need to zoom in until you see the two vertical lines at the upper left of the dissolve to grab the clip edge. Or hit the left bracket key ( [ ) when the playhead is close.

Hope this helps.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

There’s nothing complicated about it, except maybe my explanation, but I was just trying to show the “why” of it by explaining it that fully. Here’s the quick and dirty.

Select the container instead of the clip. Move title wherever you want.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

CMD+T will apply a dissolve to your title. However, dissolves require that the clip belong in either a primary or secondary storyline, so if you have a straight title connected above your primary and you hit CMD+T, FCPX will make a secondary storyline for your title and apply the fade. If you want to move the title, you need to select the secondary storyline container, not the clip to move it. Or else, use the position tool (P) to select the clip, and nudge it with arrow keys (although this method makes gap clips in your storyline so I just select the storyline container myself.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Rachel Bradshaw] “meant to press Ctrl S but I might have activated something else”

You likely hit OPT+S instead (Solo). Just hit it again to restore.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

I think I screwed something up, trying to link. Let’s try this again…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLKlD6kGHjU

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

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.