Andy Neil
Forum Replies Created
-
They would both help. As would a fast RAID for your footage. But if your project’s bogging down, you’re best off using an offline/online workflow, especially with 4K.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Do you think Apple will go forth with “event locking”? “
Yes. Or else they’ll leave the door open for 3rd parties to do it.
[Jeremy Garchow] “If they aren’t, then why ‘hobble’ what was a great metadata and category system?”
I don’t see how it hobbles anything.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why have Events at all? Why not just keep the exact same format as 10.0 Events, expect it’s now a Library. You can have folders if you want them, or separate everything by keyword.”
Couldn’t it just be step one in a shared collaborative workflow structure? If you look at how bin locking works in Avid, you have the project which shows up at merely a folder in the finder. The lockable elements are .avb files which exist within the project folder. In MC, the project is merely a window which holds bins only (no sequences) and this allows for all editors to access the same project, but only have writable permissions on the bins they opened first.
Now with libraries in FCPX, you have basically the same structure except that Apple’s used a package instead of a simple folder. This makes it a little more idiot-proof at the finder level. Inside the library, you have event folders with an event file that, presumably, could be locked in much the same way that Avid bins can be locked. The events have a finder level equivalent, something that collections don’t have since they are just meta-data sorting tools.
Perhaps this was just the first organizational hurdle to creating true project sharing. Or perhaps it was to give 3rd parties the structure so they can create project sharing programs
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Select all 20 Spot #1 Projects
FIle > Copy Projects to Library > New Library
Make a new Library called SPOT #1 Archive.”
Sure you can do it the way you describe. You can also do it the way I describe. I think it’s a good idea for the program to be a little more flexible for how different people think and or want to organize. I for one hate the idea of putting 20 spots inside one sequence.
I don’t think events have to be necessary in that they are needed to specifically perform a function that can’t be done in any other way. Folders aren’t necessary in the event/collection paradigm, but they make things easier for some people and the way they like to work.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “If there was no Events, and Projects were able to live in the Library, why wouldn’t I have a Project for every project?”
Forget that FCPX calls “sequences”, “projects. You telling me you’d only have one sequence per commercial or other project? If I have 20 or so sequences for SPOT #1 for Coke and 20 sequences for SPOT#2, this starts to get quite complicated especially when you’re not sharing all your media across all your commercials, but just say the heads and tails which are your brand logo or whatever.
So, without events you have to organize everything with keyword collections, only this becomes problematic when you want to archive SPOT #1, but can’t because it’s inexorably connected to SPOT #2 and all the other commercials you’ve done for Coke. Having an event for SPOT #1 gives just another layer of top-level organization for people.
Some may need it, some may not.
andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “If I use one Event in a Library, then why do I need an Event at all?”
It’s for flexibility with different organizational structures. For example. Let’s say you’re a facility who cuts commercials for many clients. You cut spots for: Coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser.
You have a Library for each client, but you have an event for each separate commercial project that you do for them. This way, you can compartmentalize the clients from each other while still making it easy to share media between commercial spots from within each client’s library.
That’s one use off the top of my head.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
I do most of my music editing in the secondary storyline. This is because I often have story in the primary and I add music much later in the process. Here’s some ways you can tackle the problem.
I don’t use IN/OUT or Blade for the exact reasons you stated. If you want to use playback, what I’ll do is select the secondary and then press play and use markers to mark my edit points. Then grab the range tool (R) and with snapping on, drag between the ranges and hit delete. You can do several cuts this way as the markers follow the clips.
You can also do the checkerboard method in secondaries. I do this all the time. Just SHIFT select all the audio in the secondary and hit CTL+S to expand the audio elements. It doesn’t matter that you don’t have a video element, you can still expand the audio tracks and overlap them just like this.
While you can nest your music inside a compound clip, I don’t use that often. I find it cumbersome to jump into the compound, edit it in the primary and then trim the compound in the master project. The only time I break this rule is if I’m planning on using the cut up music in another project.
Hope this helps.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
I’d be more concerned with what format the audio is. Is it embedded audio from a video clip? Or is it music or some other imported audio? FCPX is a lot more forgiving regarding the types of audio you can import, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t have issues with AAC or MP3 or some other compressed audio format.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Shawn Miller] “It’s like calling an Alexa clunky because it’s not as easy to use as an FS100.”
Actually, to use your analogy, it would be like calling an Alexa clunky if you had to type in the F-stop on a keypad instead of just turning the iris wheel.
According to Walter’s post, it seems there are some aspects to expressions of which I wasn’t aware. I only recently got CC, I’d been stuck on CS4 before that. But Walter brings up an interesting question. How would you change it?
For me, I’m not sure. Without understanding the difficulties in scripting language, I would want a Siri-like interface where you could suggest functions and the expressions GUI would format the expressions properly, prompting you for the values you need to input or listing them as options in the effects editor. Then a person with limited scripting knowledge could pull off some pretty complex effects simply by knowing what he wanted to do.
But then, if I did understand the limitations of scripting language or GUIs, I wouldn’t need to bother because scripting expressions would make sense to me. 🙂
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “there are around a million examples of what you are describing in AE – one of the most famous is ease and whizz “
You’re describing a plug-in. That you buy. I’m talking about changing the interface for expressions within AE.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “you’re aware that the scripting language in AE actually has GUI and slider tools available to it? “
No, I’m not aware of this. As I said, I’m not a programmer, nor do I want to be one. I’ve used expressions in AE before, but I don’t have the skill set to use expressions to their fullest. The typical example of how I use expressions is adding a little wiggle shake on a camera to simulate hand-held or something like that. I’d be interested in seeing the GUI for expressions though if you can point out how to get to it.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Like shawn said – motion is a version of mograph designed for editors, as in to say, not designers – you can tell because, as shawn pointed out, in its nine years of existence, the only people who use motion are editors. designers use after effects.”
I agree with Shawn about the design of Motion, although I don’t agree with your backwards logic about why only editors use Motion. First off, it’s not true, but there’s so little market penetration I can see why this is a prevalent attitude. The fact is, there are shops that use Motion, and facilities whose designers use Motion for gfx packages for FCPX. I’ve worked with some of them.
But why would a Mograph guy bother learning Motion for most jobs (if the program isn’t required) when they’re already comfortable with AE, and when AE can do more than Motion anyway? There’s just no incentive. I’m fine with that. I’ve got nothing against AE or those who use it. That said, I think there are certain things that Motion does better than AE: namely behaviors, particles, and replicators. But my original comments weren’t to argue one over the other. I just think the interface for expressions is clunky.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
