Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Bret Williams] “Star wipe!”
I must confess that in all these years I have not as yet found a use for the star wipe.
-
[Steve Connor] “Page turn with light source for me, it was the Holy Grail of transitions in my Online editing days”
Hey, if you’ve got to be quick, down and dirty with L3s, that page turn is a god-send.
-
[Greg Andonian] “What I did is start with a 6-frame cross dissolve, then put a 12-frame adjustment layer directly over it. “
Clever you, man. Classic approach and a good idea. I’ll play with that some.
-
[Bret Williams] “You like the cross zoom transition?
“I do. It can be really useful.
-
[jon smitherton] “Hey at least FCPX has got audio waveforms that are usable unlike Avid!
“Boy, I sure don’t get that. I find Avid’s waveforms extremely usable and FCPX’s abysmal. Probably just a matter of taste, though.
-
[Gary Huff] “[Chris Harlan] “Marcus, I don’t think Shane was being aggressive.”
Wow, two examples of this within a few days! Crazy.
“Its got to be one of these three:
A) Shane being aggressive, B) Marcus calling Shane aggressive, C) Me being overly paternalistic
-
[Steve Connor] “It was a very enjoyable if not slightly nerve wracking experience, when I get time I’ll write an article!
“Cool! Can’t wait to read it.
-
[Steve Connor] “The final project of the 100 minute movie I’ve just finished is 55mb, but I don’t use compound clips very much and if I do it’s generally for temporary grouping of clips.
“That’s not bad at all!
-
[Marcus Hardy] “No need to get aggressive, I wasn’t trying to defend FCPX in its ability to handle media, the guy asked if it could handle a feature length project, and from a timeline standpoint it can. That’s all I was saying, I wasn’t advocating for him to use it. Purely trying to be helpful.
No flame wars.
“Marcus, I don’t think Shane was being aggressive. I think he was simply being adamant about concerns that I happen to agree with. Several hours of video is one thing; source material for even a small film is quite something else. You undoubtedly know this, but you also made claim that “FCPX as it stands now is capable of handling a project of a feature’s length.” That statement is quite a bit broader than simply being about what the timeline can hold. I don’t know if Shane was reacting to that statement in particular, but it hit me as being pretty strong when I read it.
One of the many elements you might want to take into consideration when you embark on your feature is project bloat, which is currently a very sensitive issue for X, especially if you intend to use compound clips. Have a look at this concurrent thread as an example:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/34573
Break a leg on your project. You are certainly braver than I am.
-
[David Lawrence] “[Chris Harlan] “Whoa!”
Try it Chris!
“I would much rather take your word for it.
The thing is, I’m just happy now between MC 6 and Pr 6. Especially Pr 6. And I’m working through the finer details of those things right now. I’m coming to a fairly general agreement with your glowing early review.