Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Andrew Kimery] “For example, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon, Netflix and possibly even Microsoft (for Xbox Live) are producing, or looking to produce, their own original TV shows and/or movies. People, consumers, want this style of content they just dislike the rigidity of the traditional old media delivery timetables.”
That’s what I’m seeing as well.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Historically first cost and then a perceived stodginess in the way the software operates. I tend to like to throw a lot of things at a timeline and see what sticks, Avid always struck me as having a slower more structured approach.”
Yeah, I’m finding my new adventures in Avidland a mixed bag. I’m still going back and forth between FCP7 and MC6 (and Pr6), and I find I miss a lot of FCPs features. The odd thing is that I now find myself missing some of Avid’s features while back in 7. Keyboard trimming IS better. The utility of the Source monitor is MUCH better. If I could conbine the two, at this stage of my development, I would build all my sellects in Avid, do a cut in FCP7, fine tune with Avid, make revisions with FCP7, and then fine tune again with Avid. Also, I’m not a Colorist, but I like the color tools in Symphony quite a bit.
Pr sits astride these two nicely, btw. Maybe X will too, down the road.
-
[Charlie Austin] “‘ll say again though, as an audio guy who started recording stuff on 1/4” sound on sound machines, and ended up as a post audio mixer here in L.A before I accidently became an editor… working with audio in X is a thousand times better than in 7, or any NLE that I’ve used for that matter. Despite the lack of tracks and “faders”. I’m really looking forward to whats coming next….”
You keep saying that, Charlie, but I don’t see it. And I’ve got a very similar history to yours, including cutting blocks and razor blades with 1/4″. It may fit your style and approach more neatly, but 1000X better? Audio is currently one of the three major things that is keeping me away from X. You’ve made this claim a number of times, so I’d like you to detail WHY you think it, because I’m just not seeing it. So, maybe you could start a thread “Why FCP X audio is better than its competitors.” I’ll give you a pass on the 1000X. And, hey–I think it would be terrific if you are right. I’m very willing to be schooled and shown the errors of my way. But given what I can see currently, I can only see a case for “Charlie Austin enjoys the FCP X Approach to Audio more than other Approaches,” not “FCP X Audio is WAY better.” So, school me.
-
[Marcus Moore] “I get paid to edit in FCPX, and I find your solipsistic, self-centered viewpoint franking insulting.
“Just a reminder that we come here to argue, so shut your festering gobutit and enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
-
[Gary Huff] “(and, frankly, if FCPX/Motion worked in similar fashion, that would be worth a more detailed look)”
Me too. The relationship between the two in Studio was terrific. If I needed to do a matte, all I had to do was toss the shot to Motion. One of the big sells for me picking up X, would be reestablishing that relationship.
-
[Walter Soyka] “And OFX support — very cool. I’ll have to give Vegas a look. With all this cool stuff, why do you suppose it hasn’t caught on?”
It started out as a multitrack DAW, which is what I first used it for, back when it was Sonic Foundry. It then added multimedia capabilities, and could edit digital video files, but did not support any i/o hardware for a long time. As you doubtless remember, you could not edit Broadcast without hardware one upon a time, so it fell immediately into the consumer bucket. I remember thinking how nifty it would be to use, if only it worked with my Digisuite. So, it was late to the party. Add to this that it felt more like a DAW than an NLE–which I did not mind–and that Sony (after buying out Sonic Foundry) did not want it to compete with its own upscale NLE plans, I think you can see why its always been on the sidelines.
-
[Jon Chappell] “I suspect that they may be issues within AV Foundation rather than FCPX.”
I’d agree with that. The shift to QT X created all kinds of anomalies for SD Broadcast formats. I can only imagine what the transition to AV Foundation introduced.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t think you should view Prelude’s database functions at the same level as Lightroom, FCP X or FC Server. It’s really a logging/transcoding/pre-edit application with the ability to inject metadata into a clip. “
Seconded.
-
[Walter Soyka] “So what if FCPX isn’t the perfect general-case NLE? We are very focused here on the situations where FCPX is a poorer solution than Legend. Might not there be cases where it’s a better solution?
“If I were hired to do a small to medium market, magazine-like show, I would seriously consider X. I’m not sure I would end up with it, but I would give it a lot of deliberation. It has interesting assets for that arena which might enough to override my current preferences. I don’t think there is any way it can compete, currently, with ISIS for the large markets. For trailers and promos, I just don’t see any advantage in switching (though the enthusiasm of Charlie Austin and John Davidson does give me pause.) So, yes; I can definitely see areas where X might be a better choice. That said, even though it might be a better choice in some areas, the comfort I feel in using what I know might still outweigh the advantages it offers.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “IT’S a timeline people. Its a scenario in which my thoughts about all of the elements are liable to change.
Its my. bloody. timeline. mine.
“Yeah. That’s where my head is at.