Andy Neil
Forum Replies Created
-
That’d be kind of difficult since custom roles don’t exist before you make them. But you can select multiple clips at a time and change them all at once. And the main roles have shortcuts.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Bob Woodhead] “Roles, which can be applied in the timeline, apply to the entire parent clip, not just the segment in the timeline.”
That’s not correct. Once a clip has been edited into the timeline, it can be assigned an entirely different role from the master clip in the browser. Simply open the timeline index, select the clip and make sure the roles column is visible. Then just change the role of the timeline clip to whatever you need it to be. The master clip will remain whatever it was in the event browser. Now if you change the role in the event browser, all subsequent edits into the timeline will carry the new role, but it doesn’t ripple to the clips that were already edited into the project.
Check out my tutorial on the Roles feature in FCPX. At about 7min in, I discuss exactly how this works when changing clips in the timeline.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Yeah, I never understood why they would have a shortcut for making the marker, but not modifying it. After all, it’s a TO DO marker. You’re gonna want to put something TO DO in there.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Loren Risker] “I don’t use the timeline index much but I must be missing something because I don’t see any markers in there. “
At the bottom of the timeline index are icons by which to limit what the index shows you. You should see a marker icon. If you click it, you’ll only see the markers in your timeline. Then you can just use the up and down arrow keys to jump from marker to marker. It’s a very nice way to jump around.
Also, there is a TO DO marker that you can use and then mark it as done when you finish what you’re doing at that marker. I do this all the time in my projects. In fact, I wish it were easier to create TO DO markers to begin with because they’re damn useful.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
I remember the first time I looked through binoculars because I was like 12-13. I remember thinking, “Hey, it’s just like looking through a telescope. TV has LIED to me!!”
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[David Lawrence] “…none fundamentally change the editorial model because none fundamentally change the timeline model.”
Then you’ve got an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes an editorial model, if the only thing you are counting is the trackless nature of the timeline. And conveniently dismissing compound clip behavior because it “should’ve been there” is just you creating a confirmation bias. It wasn’t there before. It wasn’t designed that way before. It was changed in 10.0.06 and it fundamentally changes how one edits in FCPX. To me that is very the definition of “editorial model.”
Take Roles for example. They allow for a completely different take on access of clips via the timeline index as well as completely change how audio is exported. A change in the editorial model.
The Event Viewer which allows for an event browser shot to be displayed alongside a timeline shot fundamentally changes how one approaches matching shots when editing in FCPX. Another change in the editorial model.
Audio Component Editing which makes single channel editing possible in clips where before audio had to be disconnected and therefore subject to sync problems, fundamentally changes how one edits audio in FCPX. Yet another change in the editorial model.
Perhaps you meant to only comment on the modality of the timeline, I don’t know. But you said “editorial model” in your OP and to me, that’s anything that changes significantly how someone can edit in an NLE. Like it or not, these additions, including multicam have done just that for FCPX. I agree that it’s unlikely that X will ever have track editing like you’re used to in legacy or Avid, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that Apple will make real changes to the editorial model that we all got in 10.0.0, since it’s obvious that they already have.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[David Lawrence] “None of the updates to date have changed the basic editorial model and there’s no reason believe future ones will.”
That’s not true at all. Even discounting multi-cam because “it was in development before”, the Event Viewer, Roles, and Audio Component Editing are all major changes to the editorial model of FCPX. You can even make a strong case for compound clip behavior in 10.0.6.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
I probably just worded it oddly. The problem isn’t Pro Tools. The problem is timing a show for 30i broadcast mastering when production shoots in 24p and editors want to edit in 24p. They currently just edit in a 30i timeline to maintain proper timing, but for some reason they’re holding X to a different standard.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Jason Porthouse] “…post houses (who are very conservative in the main) have been either ignoring it completely or tentatively exploring it’s potential, alongside a known system they can trust.”
This is exactly true. I agree completely with you Jason. I was just talking to a facilities manager of a middling post house about X and there were a couple things that jumped out at me despite the fact that I personally think from an editing perspective, X would be perfect for the kind of work they do.
The first think that struck me was that the tests they ran on X that worried them involved editing projects in 24p and then converting them to 30i after for use in pro tools. Tests that would’ve yielded the same results in FCP7 (their current system). In fact, they’re workflow is designed to avoid the issues of 24p to 30i conversion, but yet, they expect X to handle things different. So while they’re testing it, they’re doing so with weighted scales and every failure is a confirmation of a “bullet dodged” for not having adopted it.
The second thing that was interesting was that the claim that, “no one else we know is using it,” was a viable excuse for why they hadn’t adopted it. It’s clear that there is a bias against X, I suspect from the launch and the reticence for jumping full in with something so different. But, it’s not as if they’re being pushed towards another system. They seemed just as reluctant to go with Avid (because of it’s financial issues), or Premiere (media handling).
The final thing they mentioned was they were worried about the other editors at their house being able to pick it up. I thought that was funny, but it’s prescient. The younger AEs have all played with it, but the long timers know 7, and probably only 7 (or maybe Avid), and do NOT want to learn something new. This attitude will make sure FCPX gets slow adoption, not fast.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[David Lawrence] “I believe oversimplifying/overloading the range selection UI is the reason so many users clamored for PIOPs in the first place, and why PIOPs are now a mess.””
[Walter Soyka] “The more I think about it, the more I’m surprised by the Apple 10.0.6 PIOP implementation. Of all the features to bow to pressure on, why did they pick this? Or did they really think that this implementation is an improvement?
“Can someone catch me up on what exactly is the problem with the new PIOP behavior in FCPX? I’ve been reading back in forth in this thread but while both David and Walter agree that it’s bad, no one has elaborated exactly why it’s bad.
I don’t see much use for selecting multiple ranges in a clip myself, but the main feature where it remembers the last selected range on every clip is welcome and works fine to my mind.
I’m just trying to figure out why so many people are irate about the new behavior.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com