[Charlie Austin]

[Michael Gissing] “I know this is tongue in cheek but it suggests to me you have not experienced tracks in their full glory.”

It *was* tongue in cheek but, for what it’s worth, I was a post production mixer/sound editor for about 10 or so years before I became a picture editor, and my first multi-track recordings were done on a “sound on sound” 1/4″ deck. So I have experienced tracks in all their glory. 😉 And honestly, if FCP X was supposed to be a DAW I would miss tracks. But isn’t, and I don’t. Just my opinion of course… 🙂

[Michael Gissing] “Years ago I suggested to DAW software people to embrace the idea of collapsing down a group of sounds into a grouped object that could then be manipulated by dynamics, EQ & levels as an object.”

Yep. Roles. Assign Roles/Subroles to faders/groups and off you go. I imagine that, or something like it, is coming. 😉

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “I’m with David. The Giberti method works around deficiencies in the FCPX timeline (which I think multiple primaries could solve).

The who what? got a link to this method? Seriously, I’m interested. 🙂 It might be nice to be able to connect clips to secondary story lines, but I really think that would be overcomplicating it. Compound clips work pretty well in that regard.

[Walter Soyka] May I ask — why do you choose not to use clips in the primary timeline to drive the story?”

No real reason, other than force of habit. One of the things that drove me crazy about MC back at the turn of the century was all the trim modes with gap as media between clips. The X timeline isn’t really that exactly, but honestly I’m just not used to it yet. I may start messing with it at some point, but *not* using it really has no effect on how I assemble something, though I’m starting to see how it might be useful, especially with the new expandable audio “tracks” 😉

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “No doubt you’re using it exactly as the designers intended. 😉 I’d say the fact that you’re using it that way proves my point. But hey, if it works for you and you like it, enjoy! :)”

Well, I’m not sure the designers intended for me to work with it in a specific way though. My point, (which I think is proven as well, lol) is that it *can* work that way if you want it to, or it can work like an old skool avid with gap between all the clips, or like a canvas where you just throw throw stuff wherever. However you want to work is how it works. Unless you want tracks. Then you’re SOL. But tracks are stupid. 🙂

Anyway… X doesn’t work in only one, rigid fashion, but editors do, hell I did. X freaked me out until I really dove into it. I just don’t get the whole hulabaloo about parent/child vs temporal paradigms. I’m an editor, not a philosopher. 😉 All I know is that I can cut things just fine, and I can also do stuff I could never do in a million years in Legacy. It’s so deep i can’t see the bottom and it’s fun… for me anyway. But like you said, if an NLE works for you and you like it enjoy. 😉

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “the problem with the FCPX timeline isn’t hierarchy itself, it’s that Apple engineers got the top level parent wrong. The top level parent needs to be absolute, external time; not V1.”

The way i use it, that’s exactly how it works. Primary Storyline contains a chunk of gap the length of the spot/trailer/whatever. (actually usually longer so I can store random bits at the end.) Everything is connected to that “time track”. If I want canned transitions or want to use trim mode I make secondary storylines with whatever clips I choose. I can put all my “timeline markers” on the gap. And I can drag stuff around free form just like I’m used to doing but using all the magnetic goodness that X provides. FCPX is ridiculously flexible, contrary to popular misconceptions. 🙂

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “FCPX can do that. Create a blank title in Motion and publish it to FCPX. Connect a blank title to your timeline over the other clips, add effects, and enjoy your new adjustment layer.”

Or, just grab this… 🙂 https://alex4d.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/adjustment-layer-fcpx-effect/

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Morten Carlsen] “FCPx is the most misunderstood app to ever surface a computer.. If folks would give it a real shot, they would be dropping jaws… Been using it 18 MOnths…”

… what he said. While there certainly are some quirks, and incomplete features, and limited (but improving) support for a “traditional” offline->finish workflow… When it comes to editing, X is a joy to use. Well, once you wrap your head around it is… 😉

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

I can’t diagnose whats going on with your system, but for me, X has been solid as a rock. Slamming on it 8-10 hours a day 5 days a week. Not that it helps at all, but I’ll second the opinion that maybe you’ve got a system issue, bad installation… something like that. Check out this page for some possible remedies…

https://fcpx.tv/troubleshooting.html

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “I was a PIOP cheerleader (still am), but this implementation is bogus. Like David said, ranges are now overloaded. Ranges and PIOPs have some overlap, but not this much.”

OK, that makes sense. I vote for the “turn it off” button too. 😉 Although, In list view, you can see what ranges are set in the clip, though maybe not in filmstrip view. Until it changes, the X key, which sets the entire clip as the range, is your friend I guess…

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “This PIOP implementation should have been shot down in the beta program.”

I guess I don’t understand what the fuss is all about. I mean, I was annoyed by the behavior up through version .05, but I got used to it. And I’m not crazy about having PIOP’s back, because I got used to not having them , but it doesn’t seem to be that big a deal. Take favoriting ranges in a clip.. pre .06 I’d set an I/O, hit F, maybe rename it or not, continue playing, do it again etc. Still works the same in .06.

Pre .06 if I set an I/O point for whatever reason, and then clicked on the clip, the I/O went away and the entire clip was set as a range. Now I need to hit the X key to have it do that, which is fine because maybe I didn’t want the I/O to go away, which is the whole point of PIOP’s right?

So unless I use a modifier key to set multiple saved I/O points, and I can think of a couple reasons why i might want to do that but mostly I wouldn’t… What’s the difference? the only thing I see is that now I need to hit a key (X) to have it behave like it did when I clicked on the clip in earlier versions… What am I missing here?

edit: Is the issue the fact that when you highlight a clip in the library it shows all your Favorited ranges selected? Again, the X key clears it, but I’m gonna send feedback to Apple requesting they turn that off and maybe add a “select all ranges” command or something. But again, it’s just a keystroke to make it go away…

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I don’t like what PIOPs always assume about the footage and my decisions within it.”

I missed PIOP when I started using X, and they really annoy me now that they put them back. Oh well, I’ve just gotten used to hitting the X key after I mark a range for whatever reason. Then it works like it used to. Uh, except for the hitting X all the time… 😉

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~