Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Michael Hancock] “[andy patterson] “Could you do a short demo/tutorial? I think others might like to see it as well. ”
He did back in February. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://fcpxpert.net/2017/02/25/fcp-x-versioning-using-roles-the-video/“
Thanks for posting.
I was expecting something a little different. I have seen videos like that one before. Having said that you have to assign the roles and also setup the roles so there is time spent doing that upfront. Even then on export you have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to get the correct export of audio elements. You have to hope you don’t forget about turning on and off sub roles as well. With tracks I have a much better visual work flow.
If I have four dialogue tracks, four effects track, one sound track and an ambient music track and the producer wants just an export of the four dialogue tracks I can have it done in one second by simple soloing the four tracks using my $59.99 Korg nanoKontrol 2 control surface. I don’t have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to mute and solo tracks. There is also no time spent upfront assigning roles. I can also EQ the entire audio track and clean it up in seconds. You can do it clip by clip as well.
I am not saying saving the templates in FCPX could not be useful but there is time spent assigning the roles and setting up the templates for each version. For some exports Premiere Pro or DR with a control surface might be a better option. For others FCPX might be a better option. Everyone’s editing style and delivery requirements will be different.
-
[Charlie Austin] “[Shane Ross] “No, that takes no time additional time. Export SAME AS SOURCE in Avid and you can use the Direct out option and it comes out fine. No extra time there.
”Sure, if the tracks are all set up correctly, and everything is split correctly, and the sequence is set up correctly etc. In X none of that matters, only that Roles are set up correctly.
EDIT: to be clear, I’m not talking about track 1 to Ch 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3 etc. I’m talking about Split tracks. Something like Stereo Comp to 1&2, Stereo M&E to 3&4, Mono DIA to 5, MONO FX to 6, Stereo MX to 7&8 etc etc.”
Could you do a short demo/tutorial? I think others might like to see it as well.
Having said that I think I kind of see what you are saying. I think you are saying you can have the dialogue be sent to any track/channel you want into Pro Tools or even Logic. In other words you can send the dialogue to track/channel 1 in Pro Tools and you can send the sound track to channel/track 6. If you later want to send the both the dialogue and the sound track to Logic on track/channel 4 you can do it super easy. Maybe FCPX cannot combine the two audio sources but is that kind of what you are saying? That does sound interesting. I think Premiere Pro and Avid might be able to mimic what you are doing if a feature request was made.
-
[greg janza] “[Bill Davis] “The correction is “general” to all NLEs – but how it integrates WITH range-based tagging to enhance the FCP X workflow is specific.”
I don’t think that’s any different than attaching a LUT to a clip at the master clip level in Premiere so that any and all usage of that clip will always have the LUT attached.”
Even the subclips in Premiere Pro will have the master clip effect applied.
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Steve Connor] “Cool your jets Andy, no video tutorials needed here”
Agreed. Let’s not devolve the discussion into an FCPX vs PPro thing.”
No FCPX VS Premiere Pro here.
After reading several of Bill’s comments I was hoping to see something revolutionary and extremely unique to FCPX. I am not bad mouthing his methods. I use the Master Clip effects all the time and batch paste them. In fact I have a video about a minor bug (link below) when using the Master Clip Effect. I honestly was expecting something more than what I have been doing. That is why I thought a tutorial might be wise since I am still new to FCPX and thought I may have missed something. Having said that it appears Premiere and FCPX can offer the editor the same method. I think it is worth mentioning Premiere Pro can do the same thing because some Premiere Pro users might not be aware that it can. I think it is a good idea if we are all on the same page. To show everyone how much I love to glorify Adobe I have posted yet another link of myself badmouthing Premiere Pro. Having said that the bug was not always there and it may not affect the Mac OS.
-
[Steve Connor] “[andy patterson] “A quick video tutorial might help demonstrate why the FCPX method is better for color correction.”
Cool your jets Andy, no video tutorials needed here. Bill didn’t actually say that the FCPX method is better than PPro, he’s just talking about his own personal workflow.
Not everything on here is a sleight against PPro that you have to add balance to :)”
Cool you jets Andy?
Really!
I never said he was bad mouthing Premiere Pro. That is something you read into. Shame on you! Keep in mind I did not comment on this thread until today.
Having said that Bill statements are often laced with that is the beauty of X’s approach or something similar. You can see it in this thread as well. That type of wording implies thee is a benefit to FCPX VS other NLE. With all of Bill’s comments describing FCPX as working with X, Y and Z I was hoping to see something beneficial as a FCPX users. I was not sure if there was more to it. That is why I stated a tutorial might be helpful. I am new to FCPX and I thought maybe I was missing something but it doesn’t sound like I was.
You could simply have stated.
“There is no need for Bill to make a video because FCPX and Premiere Pro can do the same thing more or less”
You could have made a simple comment like the one above. Having said that did you know Premiere Pro can do the exact same thing as FCPX?
If not isn’t it good for everyone to be on the same page as far as what the other NLE can do? I think that is what the forum is all about. After all has been said and done we now know FCPX and Premiere Pro and I imagine Avid can allow Bill to color correct they way he likes to. What is wrong with letting people know Premiere Pro (Avid might as well) can do the same thing?
[Bill Davis] “Using X has very much changed my approach to the entire video production process.”
Perhaps all NLE in the year 2017 might allow Bill to change his approach from when he used FCP 7. I think in the year 2017 most NLE can do a lot of the same things. Having said that FCPX may seem light years beyond FCP 7 but so would all of the of the NLE as of 2017. Technology In general has change the way we all edit.
-
[Bill Davis] “With that exemplar clip done, I’ll select the clip and Command C to copy the changes.
Then batch paste them onto the other clips. (This presumes it’s not exterior shifting light, obviously. More something like interior interviews.)
My “Reject pass” follows this, so from that point on, my expectation is that all the footage from that shoot will be useable in all my projects without additional adjustment needed.”
Now I am curious. How is your method different from applying a master clip effect in Premiere Pro and batch pasting that master clip effect to 10,20 or even 30 clips in Premiere Pro’s bin? You can delete or tweak the master clip effect for each clip separately. A quick video tutorial might help demonstrate why the FCPX method is better for color correction.
-
The link below might be worth looking at.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-698/
-
It might be a bug. I output to a BMD Intensity Shuttle.
-
[Bill Davis] “My fun is imagining how he might have structured his keyword collections to help.
Kinda “inside baseball, I know. But I enjoy it.”Are you sure keyword collections were needed?
-
[Walter Soyka] “[andy patterson] “I use a Korg nano Kontrol 2 with Premiere Pro and Audition. It works good for $59.99.”
How does mixing work without motorized faders?”
How does an old analogue mixer work? It just does : )
I kid I kid.
Having said that my Sound Craft 16 channel mixer from 1998 with the 100MM long throw faders was not motorized. I do not believe in motorized faders.
To answer your question. As you cycle though channels the audio level of channel 1, 9 can be a different levels and they will stay in place as you cycle back and forth between channels. You can see a jump if you want adjust the level of channel 1 and channel 1 and 9 have different audio levels. If you are not adjusting the volume there is nothing to worry about. The audio levels of channel 1 and 9 will not move. Having said that the small little jump when adjusting the volume level is not an issue because you will be adjusting the audio level of that channel any how. Does it make sense? Rather than making the control surfaces complex I say make them simple and inexpensive. Offer simple 24 and 32 channel control surfaces that have the same basic functions of an old analogue mixing board then you will not need to cycle through channels. The Korg nanKontrol 2 is very simple and basic. Having sad that if you have channels1,2 and 8 muted channels 9, 10 and 16 would not be muted when you cycle though channels. As I stated they are using LEDs so you know what channel is muted and soloed but the mute, solo and record are all using red LEDs. That is my biggest complaint about the Korg nanoKontrol 2. They need to have red, green and yellow LEDS but for $59.99 it is money well spent. I hope this helped. If not I can make a tutorial if you want.