Forum Replies Created

Page 11 of 282
  • Chris Harlan

    November 2, 2014 at 7:28 pm in reply to: Wow, Honda, wow. Really cool use of X.

    [Jeremy Garchow] “No matter what NLE was used, this is an awesome ad. What a feat of production. “

    Agreed! Very cool concept, and super execution. I’d love to know about the streaming.

    Also, I’d like to know about the car. Looks inside and out like a CRZ with a back seat. I’d love one of those. My only occasional regret with my CRZ are the two seats.

  • I’m fine with that list. Particularly with Audition and Ultra Keyer.

  • [Robin S. Kurz] “Need I go through the list from Adobe and Avid, so as to put yours to shame?”

    Yeah, I kinda think you do.

  • And MobileMe. I found that really useful, despite the silly name. At least they killed it with some notice, and I’d probably prefer dropbox these days, anyway.

  • [Scott Witthaus] “[Chris Harlan] ” they care enough”

    Explain, please.”

    LOL. Explain what? You explain what you need me to explain, and if you need me to explain that–well, I have no explanation.

  • Indeed.

  • [Scott Witthaus] “Ya gotta love having the Adobe guys lurking on this FCPX forum!”

    Yeah, its a really great thing that they care enough to do so.

  • [Oliver Peters] “[Bill Davis] “170 effect shots in Focus – far more than I would have suspected”

    That’s nothing these days. So many directors add set extensions, use stabilization and use “invisible” split screens for two shots, the 170 sounds quite low to me. Depending on how long or how cutty the film is, that’s 10% or less of the shots in the film. In that virtual user group, Mike mentioned having assistants working with Nuke in the next room. I suspect that was a similar workflow to the “GG”, just less intense.”

    Television is that way, too. You should see a rough cut of Person of Interest; there’s a whole lot of green.

  • Chris Harlan

    October 8, 2014 at 10:58 pm in reply to: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX

    [Charlie Austin] “I agree that some sort of visual cues (other than clip names) like color coding would be great. “

    This would most likely do it for me. If I could see blue sfx, red vo, green dialog, mauve music I could get a similar structural sense at a glance. It would take a bit of adapting to, but the same amount of info would visible, so I think I’d be fine with that.

  • Chris Harlan

    October 8, 2014 at 3:12 pm in reply to: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX

    [Charlie Austin] “These days, very few people bother anymore, “

    Not that I’ve seen. People are expected to bother, and are castigated if they don’t. I bother for other reasons, primarily because I get a lot more out of the timeline if I organize audio as I work. I didn’t for years, and only after studio work forced me to, did I realize I was missing a valuable tool. Now, I organize my audio, whether anyone asks me to or not. I get a lot more out of it that way. And, I’d say that goes for the majority of the people I work with.

Page 11 of 282

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy