Charlie Austin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Charlie,
One might ask why there is no discussion (or video example) of clip groups in PPro …
Franz.
“Sure there is, in my post. It’s a nice feature.
[Charlie Austin] “I also grouped all the “pod” clips in Pr before I started”
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “[Charlie Austin] “All linked in time, but also individual… I dunno… pods if you will. ”
yep, just heaving around large glued together pods, or clods even. thats the stuff.
[Charlie Austin] “the X timeline makes manipulating the “pods” so much faster and easier it’s almost ludicrous. ”
yeah but, in certain ways, some people might consider that there are some trade offs there. But, you know, as long as its ludicrously easy to move big glued together lumps around all day?”
Of course there are trade offs, there are trade off’s between any different tools. And as has been repeated ad infinitum, use the tool that suits you. For what I do, moving “big glued together lumps around” is a fairly common thing, so I like that it’s ludicrously easy to do so. I find it helpful having a MC style rippling timeline combined with a FCP 7/Pr style free form timeline. You don’t.
I mean, I miss a lot about FCP 7 too, but that ship has sailed. I’m enjoying cutting with something that doesn’t just work essentially the same as everything else has for the last 20 years. And I’m actually enjoying re-familiarizing myself with other NLE’s. Old, crusty, NLE’s 😉 lol
In the long run, if all one can cut on is one software package, they’re probably doomed in this biz. Anyway, I’ve seen the future of our craft. It’s called Vine. We’re all doomed. 🙂
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Oliver Peters] “If not, you have to change where they are connected. Not a big deal, but something you really have to take mental note of.”
….
[Keith Koby] “Agreed. You need to spend a little time up front to be able to save later.”
Oh absolutely. Honestly, this wasn’t posted for any reason other than me being curious about what it would look like doing the same thing in 2 different NLE’s. I’m sure there are things you could do where Pr or MC would be faster than X. I just found it interesting. 🙂
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Julian Bowman] “Personally I am finding that the magnetic timeline causes more hassle than it stops to be honest. The other day I was trying to shift clips along to the right, and what used to be TTTT then drag to the right became an exercise in cutting up gap clips and re situating connection points and in the end, after I did move it, my audio was out of sync with my video. Ok, I may not be as we’ll versed as many in the black arts of X, but intuitive this experience was not.”
Not sure exactly what you’re doing, but just rolling the tail of the last clip before the chunk you’re trying to ripple back a couple frames to create a bit of gap, select the right side of that gap, and ripple everything to the right as much as you need. Or select whatever you want to move and use the position tool to drag them, and all their connected clips, wherever you want. It’s different than 7 and behaves more like MC in this regard. Which, honestly, isn’t a bad thing… 🙂
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Andy Field] “Magnetic timeline: solution in search of a problem”
Clip collisions are the problem. A whole fiddly raft of workarounds involving various combinations of trim modes have been created over the years in other NLE’s to avoid them. The X timeline absolutely negates that problem, freeing you to just worry about the cut without concurrently solving a geometric puzzle.
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Oliver Peters] “Just sits there like a still without a play bar or start icon.”
Weird, cow converts it to flash or something… can u see it if you click the link?
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Oliver Peters] “Is this supposed to to play as a video?”
Yeah, doesn’t it? Works here… It’s not that groundbreaking though. Just a time-waster. 🙂
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[David Lawrence] “It’s fun pushing back. Feel free to disagree anytime. It’s all good.”
Fair enough. 🙂
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[David Lawrence] “It’s like subframe audio editing. A lot of folks around here claimed you couldn’t do that in Legacy either. You can. Sometimes it pays to RTFM. I agree FCPX has some nice trimming features. I disagree it’s unambiguously better than Legacy.”
FWIW, in addition to keyframing, you can also slip audio tracks by subframes in FCP 7. However, you do need to go to the viewer to do it. The great thing about X s you can do it in the timeline, which is really nice. In this instance X really is unambiguously better than Legacy. Also FWIW, I rarely use the mouse to trim in X. Well, other than key framing and dragging fade handles… things like that. Also, contrary to popular belief, you can select, and trim edits on multiple (connected) clips at once if the cuts are on the same frame….
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Chris Kenny] “[David Lawrence] “The speed benefits of dynamic trimming have nothing to do with measured performance. Dynamic/rock ‘n roll trimming allows the editor to make decisions in realtime, during playback, without ever touching the mouse.
Advanced editors don’t cut by looking, they cut entirely by feel, looping playback and trimming until the cut feels right without ever lifting their fingers from the keyboard.”
Look, I’m not a professional full-time creative editor…
I am, and I found David’s comments to be highly subjective at best, but mostly incredibly condescending. There are generations of “the best… advanced” film editors who would probably disagree.
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~