Charlie Austin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Oliver Peters] ” Yet, you can still grab the edge of the edited clip and trim it at what appears to be a more precise amount than 1/100th of a frame.”
The amount is a sample. I have no idea where the 1/48000 of a frame came from, It’s 1/48000 of a second if it’s a 48k sample rate, 1/44100 of a second if it’s 44.1 And X, just like Pr, can trim audio at that level of accuracy. 😉
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[David Roth Weiss] “Does the information above mean that FCP X is a toy, or that users are amateurs? Of course not…
Of course not. And when did you stop beating your wife? 😉
In all seriousness, this thread redefines the term “splitting hairs”. No matter the different atomic level of accuracy, which nobody is really sure of anyway, not having to switch modes to do subframe/sample accurate editing is actually quite nice. As I switch back and forth between X and Pr regularly, I think I’m allowed to say this.
EDIT: Forget the “nobody is really sure of” line above, if you have a 48k audio clip, you can trim/move audio by 1/48000 of a second (a sample) in both X and Premiere. Exactly the same functionality.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Andrew Kimery] “and It’s pretty straightforward to use. I just never did anything extensive with it and the example you gave with X seems like the type of problem Avid was trying to address with this particular tool.”
Yeah, played with it a little and it’s not too bad. It would help with the audio when versioning for sure. That just leaves the slates, gfx, and picture to not screw up. 😉
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Andrew Kimery] “Yeah, I don’t do much timeline versioning like that on my usual gigs but when I do I’m always worried I’ll accidentally mix up the wrong slate and audio or something like that even though I triple check it all.”
Me neither, but I’ve done it a lot over the centuries 🙂 Never out of X though… When I saw the delivery sheet I was crestfallen. For the reasons you note, it’s a real PITA. Then I was like… “Hey, wait a minute… this might work” And it did. I’ll never version out of anything else, no matter what the material was cut in. 😉
I checked out that pdf. I’ll mess with it when I can, but on first blush it’s, like anything MC, convoluted. Nice feature though…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Andrew Kimery] “If you have a Avid MC 8.1 or newer I’d be curious to see what you think of their Multiple Mix tool.”
I have 8.4, i’ll check it out. I wish i had more reasons to use MC these days, I’m getting very rusty. 🙂 The nice bit about Roles is that they apply to video as well. So I can made presets for pretty mach any combo of slates, picture, gfx, and audio. Was nice to use just one timeline – and never need to touch it – when outputting all the versions.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Andrew Kimery] “It’s kinda like having a small multitool on your keychain vs always having to go to the garage to get a screw driver.
“As John points out, QT 10 is actually a really great little editor. (CMD-T and CMD-E are your new friends) The only thing “missing” are the “pro” export functions, but all that and more is in Compressor for 50 bucks. I can’t remember the last time I opened QT 7 on purpose…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Gary Huff] “Magic Bullet Looks is a plugin that’s also its own app. So is Tiffen DFX.”
Yep. There’s a difference, but it’s hair-splitting at this point.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Jim Wiseman] “I need a powerful DAM, Digital Asset Manager, for photos.”
I’ve never used Aperture, so forgive the dumb question, but what’s lacking organizationally in Photos vs Aperture?
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Gary Huff] “That’s a lot of verbiage to simply express that an extension is merely a sandboxed plugin.”
In a browser, sure. In the case of OS X, Extensions are not a standalone “thing”, they’re just code to allow Applications to extend parts of their functionality into other apps. Plugins generally don’t do anything without a host app. So far, all the Photos Extensions are built into standalone apps. So… similar to plugins in how they work with other apps, but not the same…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[David Roth Weiss] “That sounds like a plugin, are they the same, or is there a difference?”
Kind of. I think the difference is that, rather than just adding something to Photos, it basically hooks another app into Photos. All the Apps listed here are not new, they’re standalone apps. But because of the new Extensions API thingy, they’ve been updated so you can use them from within Photos as well.
EDIT: So I guess my Color Finale/mObject & FCP X example wasn’t really correct, despite their custom UI, they are plugins in that you need to open them from FCP… I dunno what the analog to this is…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~