Andy Neil
Forum Replies Created
-
[tony west] “I wanted to see more break downs of it pro and con.”
It has many pros and very few cons, but the cons make it unworkable for standard post production multicam workflows like the type that Mark Raudonis uses over at Bunim-Murray.
Pros:
Syncs easily and very accurately
Uses metadata creatively to create multiclips
Angle viewer is simple and elegant
Angle Editor is badass and multiclips are more editable than in any other NLE
Can sync stills, audio, different frame rates/sizes and codecs.Cons:
Can’t easily drill down into the audio tracks for each angle
Can’t edit multitrack audio or assign multitrack audio.
Can’t separate audio from video in edited multiclip
Can’t “finalize” or otherwise separate an edited clip from it’s multiclip relationship.Most of the cons are to do with audio or how an editor might need to manipulate audio after an mutlicam edit. Hopefully, these shortcomings are being addressed along with a general fix of how audio is handled in FCPX projects.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Been doing most of my “at home” freelance work on it except where not ideal. Then it’s FCP7. None of my main post-prod jobs are in X but that’s to be expected. Even if it were a complete NLE last June, post facilities don’t usually switch out that quickly.
Ironically, it’s opened up a new avenue of work for me: Training FCP editors at shops how to edit on Avid. Of course, if X gets any traction in the post industry in the next 3-5 years, I’ll be able to train people in X as well.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Well, you’re welcome, Jim. Glad you got some use out of it. The technique itself is the X version of an edit strategy I developed while working in news (on Avid). Like documentaries, news packages typically follow the VO/Sound bite/VO paradigm so there’s a lot os similarities on how they’re put together in the early stages.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
These are only my experiences, so YMMV, but to answer the questions Steve and Walter brought up.
[Steve Connor] “Interesting question, perhaps we could ask some of the people on here if they chose to use FCPX because it was made by trendy and innovative Apple, or simply because they liked the way the software worked?”
I downloaded it because I was curious. However, if I’m being honest, I would say that the fact it was an Apple product and I liked FCP7 so much made the decision easier. I had no illusions that they were in any way similar other than they both edit video. But just as Photoshop lead me to After Effects so many years ago, I chose to trust Apple’s vision for the product. And even though I hated the UI at first, it has grown on me.
[Walter Soyka] “I’d also ask how many people who are using and loving FCPX now are comparing it only to FCP7. In other words, how many tried MC5.5, PrP CS5.5, and FCPX before choosing FCPX versus defaulting to FCPX?”
I compare it against all the NLEs I can use with any dexterity. This includes MC and Premiere as well as FCP7. For certain projects, I don’t even want to consider using FCP7, Avid, or Prem, because FCPX has made some editing that I do completely fun and breezy. By that same token, there are other projects (more complicated ones) that I can immediately see will cause me more headaches than not to do in X, and wouldn’t think of using it there. At this point, it includes most of my “day” job stuff (TV shows and the like). I would love to cut a multicam show on FCPX, but the audio flexibility isn’t there yet to even attempt it. It’s too bad though because putting together multiclips has NEVER been so easy.
[Walter Soyka] “There were some new and interesting ideas in the PC-only Avid Liquid (including some familiar ones like continuous save, no separate dedicated audio or video tracks, background rendering and GPU processing — all this in the early 2000s), but it never got much traction.”
I loved what I saw in Liquid back when it was Pinnacle. We were shopping for alternate NLEs at my news station, and this was one we looked at. Although they suffered from the “too many buttons” problem that has plagued Premiere, there were some great things about it. In particular, the continuous save, surround sound mixing via a very responsive and graphical UI. Being able to adjust luminance and color of a clip directly on the wave form and vector scope.
In my opinion, the reason these great ideas never got any traction in the marketplace was because Avid didn’t sell them. Soon after we demoed Liquid, Pinnacle was bought by Avid. At first I had hope that some of these ideas would be incorporated into MC, but no. Strangely, Avid decided to go to market with two separate NLEs that didn’t seem to fit together. It was/is a confusing idea. Even Avid didn’t seem to know how they wanted to position Liquid.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Then perform one more test.
Go into your preferences and turn off background rendering. Then add the clip and effect. Then export (while the orange render bar still sits above your footage). How long does it take until you have a finished clip?
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[adam chesbrough] “2. Render in FCPX, export as contained/current settings (time is marginal), encode in compressor X.
Total Time: 4:40 (2:20 render and 2:20 encode)”You list three processes and only give times for two.
1. Render in timeline
2. Export current settings
3. Encode in Compressor.Is the export part of the 2:20 render? How long was the actual export once the render was completed?
The experiment you did seems to support what I said since Compressor doesn’t use the graphics card at all, but FCPX export does. What others have said on this forum is that you can further speed up the export out of FCPX if you don’t pre-render the timeline. In other words, just export the timeline with all the orange render indicators.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
According to what others have said here, it’s actually faster if you DON’T render your timeline before export. It’s counter-intuitive to what you’d do in FCP7, I know, but apparently, rendering during export involves the graphics card as well as the processor. Rendering in the timeline is done with the processor only.
FCPX doesn’t have a batch export yet, so the only real “workaround” is to open each sequence and choose the Send to Compressor option under the Share menu. Then copy/paste each job into a single job where you can export all the sequences with Compressor.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
My perspective regarding FCPX changed markedly from the first point I tried it to now. That alone was very surprising to me. My ire cooled and I learned it’s shortcuts and although I use it for paid freelance work, I don’t completely trust it, but I’m certainly interested in seeing how it evolves.
The biggest change I’ve noticed in this forum has been a general mellowing of emotions which has allowed for more interesting discussions on the future of our business and the different choices out there.
There is a ton of experience on this forum and I am not so convinced of my own opinions that I don’t enjoy hearing other perspectives as well. It’s a great place for Apple, Avid, and Adobe to understand exactly what we need out of our tools.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Your idea (once you expanded upon it) makes some sense, but it seems such an inelegant solution. Particularly since versions, to me at least, mean the same project, but with changes. In most cases, when I want to export only a portion of my timeline, it’s because I intend to work on that portion in another program: say Motion. That’s why a multi-layer range select or work area would be an elegant solution to that problem.
But I do see your point, and I wonder what the end game of this versioning feature that’s built into the OS.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
FCPX considers any codec that it can interact with natively as “optimized.” This includes XDCam if I’m not mistaken.
I’ve never been all that impressed with XDCam 422HD as a codec for keying, mostly because I don’t think it’s an I-frame codec, and those long GOP codecs aren’t very good at pulling keys when there’s difficulty. If you recorded MPEG2-IMX, then that’s an I-frame codec and is much better for projects like keying (not sure what camera you were using).
So, switching to ProRes will put you in an I-frame codec, but the color sub-sampling will be the same (4:2:2), so I’m not sure how much better things would work (if at all).
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com