[Carsten Orlt]

That’s too bad. It’s really time to stop buying video in/out devices. It’s money out the window.

And unfortunately the VTR Exchange software doesn’t work reliable enough to be usable.

Ah well booting into FCP7 for years to come…

[Carsten Orlt]

Well spotted and I hope your concerns are wrong!
Because if you’re right it would be a disaster !!!

I would understand if the ioHD wouldn’t work with FCPx upcoming video out directly but please make control room work with the ioHD standalone so we can still work with tapes if we need to.

Please, please Aja…

[Carsten Orlt]

YMMV, but over the years, I’ve found that the most skilled editors were also the most technically sophisticated. I don’t think FCPX will change that. If anything, it’ll probably mean more work putting out editorial fires as more and more novice users confuse FCPX’s automation for experience and skill

It will not make anybody a better editor, but it will make a technical problem way easier to handle. To use your example, it wouldn’t have made the program better edited but it would have saved you a lot of time cleaning up the messy timeline. It lets you focus more on the craft of editing and less on the technicalities of modern video formats.
This will benefit the novice as much as the seasoned editor.

And the novice who thinks some fancy software replaces experience is as wrong as the experienced who thinks that nothing can replace her/him.

[Carsten Orlt]

But the more I try to help him work out the best workflow to deal with SD or HD and what HD I really start hating (yes hating) FCP7. The way FCPx handles all this is how it should be. I know there is a bit more to it like loosing quality when upscaling etc but this is peanuts against the problem which format your source should be converted too and what your seq should be set too and what if you need to change it after you edit the program.

This was my original quote. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. By ‘this is peanuts’ I ment that the obvious problem that when you upscale you will loose quality and there are only 2 options to minimize that loss (hardware or software scale). It is therefor much easier to explain and to understand compared to that SD has at least 2 and HD at least 4 different pixel dimensions which effect how you have to deal with text, graphics etc. In addition to this you have the frame rates and progressive versus interlaced.
One problem has 2 possible solutions (peanuts) against the other problem having a lot more than that (never calculated the total possible combinations of frame rates and pixel dimensions.

Clearer?

And believe me this IS quantum physics for some who are much better editors than we are!

[Carsten Orlt]

Quite interesting how a simple post about my joy that a certain difficult problem has now an elegant solution has gone off the rails. Not to say that the new topic has some interesting points but it has nothing to do with I wrote in the first place.
And all because some are threatened by the word ‘easier’. Are you afraid there is an army of naive amateurs out there that will burn you alive when you open the door of the castle of knowledge and true professionalism?
What are you trying to defend? Why do you want things complicated? Because somebody without your years of experience suddenly can get the same result?

I stand by my original post: The way FCPx with frame sizes and frame rates is brilliant! And I didn’t read a single argument that disputed this. I read a lot of arguments disputing other things but that seems to be the way it works..

[Carsten Orlt]

[Rafael Amador] “To edit you can be be technically an ignorant, to be an editor you can’t.”

That’s my point. The editor who is not technician and suffers because of he/she being forced to work with convoluted software that is made for technician is not ignorant. The editor is very much aware of the problem. So one solution is to make the technical part easier or go away and editor is happy and can deliver beautiful edits. Of course the other solution would be to try to train the editor all the technical bits to get by. I kind of like solution one better. You might not.

[Carsten Orlt]

But neither do I want to clean up the mess afterwards because even though the program is brilliantly edited it is technically not optimised and the editor is asking me for advice.

If a software makes this process easier or even plain simple than I love this software. And you know what. Because it’s easy even on our own projects I can spent more time editing and less time dealing with boring technical stuff.

I always did find it curious that many mediocre editors got the edge only because they were wiz (is that spelled correctly?) kids on the computer. You could even include myself, which I of course would deny. In the times of a simple scissor to make a cut you were judged by your edit not how smart you were doing everything but editing.

[Carsten Orlt]

[Rafael Amador] “Is notorious that FCPX was designed so any ignorant can edit and even export a movie”

So any editor who is not a technician is ignorant?

[Carsten Orlt]

Hi,

Ultimately the one that you feel most comfy with. Sorry but it is a very personal thing as reading this forum will confirm.

I would start with the question what you want to do with it? Do you have tape based footage or do you need to lay down to tape? Than right now your only options are Avid, Premiere or getting a copy of Final Studio 3.

If you don’t need the above but really want to get into the editing game as a profession I would probably say Avid right now as it is the most wide spread. If you don’t set up your own system you will come across the others too but most likely it’ll be Avid and FCP 7.

Now if you just want to cut your own stuff as you’re primarily a video producer I highly recommend having a go at FCPx. I have a friend who is a professional editor coming from film and who was never comfortable using computers. Neither is he a technical person who understands all the in and outs of SD vs HD and HD’s myriads of formats. When I was talking to him about future projects and the difficulty picking the right workflow using FCP7 it dawned on me why Apple was so radical with FCPx. It takes away 80% of the usual technical bull we have to deal with. I do work with it since it came out so this is not from reading but from experience.

Anyhow you’ll will get many different opinions. Do your own research as everybody’s conclusion might be different. My editor of choice is FCPx now and only if I need certain functionality I will use my FCP7 (capture and lay to tape, OMF). I cut our own 1 hour docs and I’m an editor for 27 years starting with NLE’s 18 years ago.

Hope this helps a little

Carsten

[Carsten Orlt]

It’s a bug. If you have 2 window trimming enabled it will set the viewer back to ‘fit’ after the in/out display.
Something to send to Apple again (I already did)