[Charlie Austin]

[Mitch Ives] “FWIW, I’ve known Bill for what must be 15-20 years now. He is a genuinely nice person… helps anyone who has ever asked, and actually has a very good sense of humor. “

I don’t want to get into personalities here, I think it’s again the law of the cow, but that is really very clear. As an early adopter and current fan of FCP X, I also understand the frustration one can feel here when confronted with, sometimes irrational, and often misinformed criticism. Especially when it seems like one’s “professionalism” is being questioned. I guess I was giving advice I give myself from time to time. I suppose my point was basically “you catch more flies with honey”. 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

If your project timecode is set to an interlaced setting (i), try changing it to progressive (p)

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jeremy Garchow] “In X, all of this can be done in the export from the same timeline.”

Also, you can be exporting multiple different splits etc at the same time. Start one, set up the next with different output, start it, next, next, next. Very helpful.

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Bill Davis] “My apologies.”

No need for apologies! And i hope I wasn’t being too harsh. I really appreciate your observations and info. It just bums me out when it gets overshadowed by peoples reactions to your tone. Personally, I can understand how you feel. I really think I spend more time filtering my posts here for tone than actually writing them. And sometimes i mess up too. lol

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Andrew Kimery] “With regards to rearranging the timeline, I might be misunderstanding you, but in FCP 7 (and I believe Avid and PPro as well) you don’t have to rearrange what’s in the timeline to get different output results. For example, in FCP 7 you can map the timeline track to be whatever audio output track you want it to be (i.e. Track 1 in the timeline can be mapped to be Track 4 on output).”

You can. In FCP 7 at least, it is a giant PITA of carefully right clicking etc. If you have more than a dozen tracks it’s really annoying, particularly if you have to do a few different iterations. (Stems, mix minus, mono split etc…) I thing Pr and MC act in similarly. Roles make it really really easy…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Bill Davis] “And then note that what I’m pushing back against in this thread is public discussions with an editor who doesn’t use X indicating that the very REASON he doesn’t use it is because it “fails” in a necessary operation – that I then pointed out that it actually handles that specific operation rather brilliantly.”

And that’s fine Bill, even pushing hard. I think what people react to in your posts are statements like:

“…and therefore make editing much, MUCH easier for those who understand the new system.”

“And the nomenclature had to change because the CONCEPTS behind the program had to change. Starting with a clean slate lets you start from scratch and use names that have meaning in the new system. Timelines were FIXED with a zero point and an unbreakable progression in time.”

“the whine of “But I already KNOW words for this kind of stuff – don’t make me learn any new terms.” which is simply kinda LAZY IMO. “

Here’s my opinion, feel free to reject it, 🙂 …

There’s no reason to insult people, (even if they deserve it lol). Facts help change minds, and you often present great facts. But when they’re wrapped in indirect insults it hurts your argument.

And you sometimes offer your opinions, – such as the part above about names changing because concepts change – as facts. They’re not. The names more likely changed because Apple’s other apps use terms like Library and Project and Event. iPhoto, Logic, Motion. And sometimes you’re even wrong… For example, timelines still are fixed with a zero point, and are still called timelines in X.. 😉

I don’t say this to pile on, but to maybe shed light on why people react to some of your posts the way they do. The high horse approach isn’t necessary, and doesn’t work. IMO of course. There are plenty of people who will never like X. Whether for a legitimate reason like it doesn’t suit their workflow, or a dumb reason like they’re mad at Apple for killing off older products. BFD.

Presenting info, as you have in this thread, about how X can work for someone is great. Pontificating about the inner workings of software you didn’t write, and denigrating anyone who “doesn’t get it” is counterproductive. Again… my opinion…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jeremy Garchow] “You see, this is really hard to get across, but with trackless or Roles, or whatever you want to call it, you don’t have to rearrange the timeline to get different output results. You simply reshuffle the information to way that suits the output. It’s pretty nice like that.”

I honestly feel this way about the timeline in general. I agree that some sort of visual cues (other than clip names) like color coding would be great. And I also wouldn’t mind being able to group roles, as long as i could turn it off. I’m honestly not sure this would work well at all with multichannel/multi-Role sources. The “solutions people are offering are a kludge…

I do organize the X timeline in a “traditional” way where possible (DIA/VO more or less at the top, FX more or less in the middle, MX at the bottom) but because of the way the timeline/timeline index work, I don’t care if things get a little intermingled. And It’s really easy to separate things if I want with secondaries or a silent audio slug. FWIW, I didn’t feel this way at all when I first started cutting in X, but I’m used to it now and it’s perfectly fine. Again, Role colors, (and audio Role bussing of some sort) would be nice…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Andrew Kimery] “If the mixer Charlie uses rarely gets organized timelines that’s not an NLE shortcoming, that’s an editor being unprofessional shortcoming. If you hadn’t guessed, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.”

FWIW, it’s not just one mixer, it’s guys and gals at most of the post audio places in town. (LA) Trailers tend to be better organized, but when people are cranking out spots, all bets are off.

I also share your pet peeve, if for no other reason than I used to be a mixer and had to deal with it. Back in the dark ages of elements coming in on DAT with 2 pops or DA-88’s or something, I think people were more careful, because they had to be. Now it’s “here’s the AAF, you deal with it.” Another pet peeve of mine is layering 10 stereo effects or more when 3 or 4 would have done. I’ve deleted more superfluous tracks from preps than I can remember. And I say superfluous because, when the mix was done, nobody ever noticed. 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Andrew Kimery] “I think that might be more indicative of the level of professionalism and/or experience of the other editors rather than the software used. I’ve seen some ugly organization on very simple timelines so it’s obvious that the editor either doesn’t give a crap or, through inexperience, doesn’t realize how much work it is for the mixer to sort everything out later.”

I think it’s probably way more likely for people to do proper preps in scripted, and maybe agency-type advertising. And again, I’m not saying everybody does this at all. I keep stuff organized as much as I can as I cut, and then make it all nice when it goes to finish. So do folks I work with.

But, in talking to mixers, they get a lot of stuff that’s a god-awful mess. And not just from inexperienced editors. I think there’s more “not my problem” attitudes out there than in the past. And, at least in smaller places that do what I do, maybe less people who are strictly post supervisors. All anecdotal of course…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Michael Aranyshev] “The names aren’t random”

I mean random relative to pix. If, as you said earlier, “…the best sorting order is Date Created.” in 7, why wouldn’t that work in X. In any case, are you not being provided with sound reports? Unless I’m misunderstanding it seems that this process, where it appears you have to guess what audio goes with what pix, would be a nightmare in any NLE.

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~