Charlie Austin
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks man, I’d be happy to… drop me a line. 🙂
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Andrew Kimery] “I remember seeing someone take the Apple poop emjoi and make it 3D. Is this how they did it?”
That would have been me. And yes, that’s how I did it. 🙂
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Scott Witthaus] “Wait. Couldn’t Premiere do a better job?
;-)”
Of course. Pr or MC or R12 would have worked way better. They have tracks and mixers. 🙂 It’s a pretty cool spot, even if it was cut in iMovie which, in theory, it could have been. lol
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Shawn Miller] “[Charlie Austin] “But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers),”
I guess I don’t see the advantage in the context of compositing. Truthfully, I don’t even do much timeline scrubbing when trying to match the elements in a composite. I’m usually concerned with color, luminance, edges, etc at that point. “
Well, for me, if I’ve got a dozen layers or something, it’s a real quick way to see a particular layer without enabling/disabling the clips above it. just shaves a little time off when working, but it adds up.
[Shawn Miller] “[Charlie Austin] “Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc.”
I confess that I don’t really understand compound clips… what makes them better (in your opinion) than nested sequences or comps for compositing?”
They’re not terribly different really, compound clips just seem easier to work with. less convoluted to decompose/recompose. Could just be me…
[Shawn Miller] “Are you saying that the FCPX timeline is more vertical than other timelines when compositing? 🙂 Kidding aside, I don’t understand what you mean here… aren’t FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke. “
Oh, absolutely. I bounce back and forth between Pr and X a lot and when doing the same things in both, it’s a much more pleasant experience in X. In Pr, there are way less built in effects/looks etc snd I feel like I need AE often (which I don’t rent) when working. But In X I rarely feel I need to go to Motion or something. I’m not doing super complex stuff though, so YMMV…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Shawn Miller] “Really, how so? Premiere Pro has a number of blending modes, trackable masks, adjustment layers, fairly decent matte tools, a solid key framing system (for an NLE) and native support for lookup tables. What gives FCPX the edge for compositing? Honestly asking, I had never seen FCPX used for compositing before today (referring to the video that Walter shared earlier).
“X has that as well. Some maybe better than Pr, some perhaps not. Pr arguably has more refined key framing, (though X is much better these days) And you need plugins for tracking and LUT’s in X. But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers), the ability to adjust relative or absolute transform and effects parameters on groups of clips, Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc.
It’s not specific feature set vs feature set thing. Pr may win that one. But the X timeline is really well suited to working vertically. In Tim’s earlier reply describing compositing vs editing he was specifically not talking about X, but he could have been.
I’m doing some pretty basic compositing in Pr this week and it’s maddening. Not because of the feature set, that’s fine, but because of the way you need to work, if that makes any sense.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Walter Soyka] “[Tim Wilson] “Is it that X has taken a step back from the compositing environment Legacy offered? Or that it pales in comparison to the renamed reorganization? LOL ”
We can’t talk about compositing/animation in FCPX without mentioning this:
https://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1571-old-school-magic-in-fcpx-a-br...
I’d cringe at the method, but I respect the result.”
The compositing you can do in X makes Legacy (and Pr if you don’t have AE) look like a toy. You may need some plugins to do more complex stuff, but the built in tools on their own are really nice. Fun even. 🙂
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Tim Wilson] “The future will arrive when we download a virus to our TV.”
This, while tangentially off-topic, seems apropos… Vizio IPO plan shows how its TVs track what you’re watching. :-0
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Bill Davis] “I understand the “I don’t want to use compounds or secondaries or whatever.”. But they were coded into the software in order to solve problems that other modes do not. So I have a hard time accepting the “It’s not my preferred way to work, so it’s the softwares fault.” concept. That would be like someone arguing that X isn’t an efficient editor, only to discover that person uses it exclusively in Position mode and NEVER uses the magnetic timeline. It’s just not how things are supposed to work. “
Huh?! I’m not saying anything at all about something being “the softwares fault”. I’m not talking about faults with the software. I’m simply pointing out that there’s another very cool and very easy way – that the software allows – for one to accomplish what I was talking about. If anything, I was illustrating the flexibility of “the software”.
I’m not sure how you read what I wrote as being critical of anything.
[Bill Davis] “But if it’s got the tools to do an operation, but an editor chooses not to use those tools. Then is that the software’s fault? Worth asking.”
It would be worth asking if it had any relevance to what was actually in the conversation. 😉
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Bill Davis] “You are definitely cutting something pretty unusual if an easy to execute combination of those capabilities can’t get you what you want. I’d like to see that project, cuz I’m having trouble visualizing the stopper here.”
Did you watch the video in my post above? It’s not unusual at all, it’s very common when doing sound design/dialog cheating. Say I have a shot of an explosion. The “boom” sound is a component of the video. But I want a reverse suckback sound, and some fuse noise to come in, and stop a frame or more before the first frame of the shot. There is no tail to this sound.
I may have dozens of lanes of audio, and I need to use comps and secondaries judiciously. I do not want to adjust the picture to accommodate the sound, I don’t want to make unnecessary comps, or create 2 secondaries, append gap, and connect them. Yet those 2 clips need to be connected to this shot if I want to move that bit and all its related audio.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Bill Davis] “Then you just hold the tilda key to shift the connected clip until the connection point no longer presents a conflict. “
That’s not a solution to what lance describes. If the clip should be connected to a clip it does not extend under for connection, meaning it’s audio that “belongs” to something it doesn’t overlap – A rise leading up to a hit that connects to the first far of a shot for instance- the only quick way to connect it is what I described. Check it out.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~
