Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Chris Harlan] “Whoa! DNxHD? How nice!”
Shane Ross called it — we’re entering the age of DNxHD [link].
But did you see the part about unlimited nodes? Resolve Lite is now a full-featured color grading system. For free.
“It is amazing. I’m guessing that this is the first move in a 3rd party hardware square-off to reap the opening up of Media Composer.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Those two clips which are identical may or may not have a relationship to the clip in the timeline. It depends on which one you used. I personally think FCPX is way more highly flexible in this regard. I don’t have to keep track of two clips. “
I guess I just don’t see the value of that. I can’t think of a real world case where it would matter to me, or why it would shorten anything–certainly not in what I do, though I’m of course willing to entertain that there are more things in editorial than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
-
Dude! I totally see where you are coming from in this. I NEVER need to get this granular since I’m project in/project out with a clean slate each time, and seldom any overlap between projects. Looking at what you’ve got going here, makes me see your POV a whole new way. Just curious–did Final Cut Server not deliver for you?
Also, can you call up those GPS points in FCP X? I think that would be terrific for location scouting.
-
[Walter Soyka] “UNLIMITED nodes and DNxHD MXF support for free”
Whoa! DNxHD? How nice!
-
[Bill Davis] “I suspect with your hesitance to even CONSIDER that there might be parts of the X design that could be superior to what was implemented in Legacy will be a big stumbling block to your learning it.”
Bill, you totally misunderstand me. The whole reason I started this thread, and others like it, is that I DO want to know what is better or interesting about FCP X. I AM curious about such things. You don’t need to defend your preference for FCP X to me. I think I’ve told you on a couple of occasions that I think it is a good tool for you. AND for many others. I don’t begrudge anyone using it. In fact, I’m intrigued by it. So, I’m just trying to see it for what it is. I think you’ll find in my reply to Jeremy in this thread, that he made me see–and agree to–his POV on several counts. I think you’ll find, if you look across many of my replies, a similar pattern.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Hmm
Well, I guess that pretty much negates everything I have said as my process has been reduced to data mining. “
Actually, I accidentally hit post direct before I was finished, so I think you’ll find the whole reply less flippant and more to your liking.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Whole seasons of raw footage or whole seasons of finished shows? So 20 Quicktime Movies or 20 episodes worth of raw footage? In which scenario do you think a search function might come in handy?
“Either/or/and both. Never just 22/23 Quicktime files. Even when it is that simple, it still breaks down to many sub clips, ancillary gfx, multiple sfx libraries, and a fairly large pool of music selections.
Also, why would you even consider editing 22 full episodes in a single project file, when all but a very few elements must be kept away from each other?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Do you really use the find function all that often? How big are your projects in terms of number of media clips and timelines?”
No, not that much. I’m usually editing instead of data mining. But I do use it fairly regularly to round up sound effects and supplied gfx. My projects can be fairly large since they can involve whole seasons with a variety of permutations.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Here’s what happened when I search for footage shot by a particular shooter in a current FCP7 project, and the search took 43 seconds:
“I’m certainly NOT having problems like that on my 8 core, but I DO admit that it is slow. So, YES–quantitatively faster search.
[Jeremy Garchow] “FCPX is way more fluid and instant, and then tagging those clips is much faster and dynamic “
Okay, I’ll buy that.
[Jeremy Garchow] “and you won’t have multiple physical copies of the clips in separate bins where the master clip relationship might get screwy”
Can’t agree. First, you don’t get “multiple physical copies.” That is an illusion. And second, you only get new master clips if you go through the process of making them so.
[Jeremy Garchow] “With 7 yes, the clips come up in a “results” bin, and then you can put those clips in yet another bin, but the implementation is no where near as useful and fluid as FCPX.”
Now, Jeremy, the few extra keystrokes required to copy all of the contents of one bin and paste them in another is hardly “no where near as useful and fluid as FCPX.” Frankly, the fact that, in FCP X, you can’t have any kind of permanent bin at all is far more inconvenient than the occasional need to select all and then copy and paste.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Also certain characteristics of makers simply aren’t searchable in FCP7, and then once things go in to the timeline, even more of the metadata characteristics become unsearchable. Not so with X.
“This–like speed above–is the kind of thing I’m looking for. Could you elucidate a bit? What would I WANT to be searching for that I can’t search for in FCP 7? This isn’t a challenge. It is why I asked the question in the first place.
[Jeremy Garchow] “While yes, “Find” does work in 7, it’s slow and inefficient compared to FCPX.”
I’m guessing this is a pretty fair criticism of 7 v. X. Of course X HAS to be this way, as the search function is not ancillary–as it is in 7–but basic to its binning structure. With as much time as you’ve spent in X, do you miss bins at all? Or do you find X’s structure superior in most or all regards? I know this is a matter of taste; I’m curious what yours is at this point.
-
x
-
[Bill Davis] “Which is all well and good.
FCP-X takes “Find Whatever” AND gives you a way to persistently group all the Whatevers together – and after you’ve done that, you can narrow that list down to only BLUE Whatevers, and make THAT persistent recallable data.
If you can’t see how that might be more useful that being limited to “find whatever” then fine.
Your choice.
“Why do you think I can’t do “find whatever” in FCP 7? AND put them in a group? I’m getting the feeling that some folks here never used the more advanced functions of “find.” You DO know that you can search keywords, don’t you? And that you can label sub clips? And that you can combine all kinds of searchable metadata like “Linda,” “MCU,” “Blue,” and “Whatevers?”
And that it would gather your search into a single bin? And that you could make a permanent copy of that bin with a couple of keystrokes?
I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but I’m just not seeing the magic.
-
Bill, maybe I don’t understand everything you are saying, but I’m having trouble picturing anything you are listing here as being more difficult in FCP 7. When I have a little more time I’ll try to detail this, but I’m not understanding why you seem to think it is such a hassle to use a timeline as a source bin, or why you can’t convert the contents of a timeline into its own bin, or why you can’t use bins like groups, and why you can’t use keywords and the search function in FCP7 on both clips and bins to do the kind of sorting you are talking about. Sure. It is a different approach, which some folks might really enjoy, but I am just not visualizing your description as an improvement. Only different. And in some cases with more keystrokes.
I certainly owe you more, though. You wrote a fine description of your process, and I owe it to both of us to go line by line, so you have every opportunity to show me the errors of my thinking. I apologize for not doing that now, but the hour is late. Perhaps in the next day or two I can give you a proper response.