Forum Replies Created

Page 281 of 282
  • Sure. In the factory world I work in big masses of material and little pieces of things are in and out, done and gone. They come from different clients, different projects, can be whole, sometimes inter-related, or not having any inter-relationship to anything else at all. They occur daily with huge overlaps, sometimes on their own media, sometimes on shared or LAN/SANed media. They have many things in common that are absolutely arbitrary. Many of them have the same shoot dates, were shot on similar cameras, and, of course all have the same variety of shots. Some things will be there for a moment. Some things will be there for eight weeks. While I’m certain all of this will eventually be manageable in the event-based paradigm, I can see no argument for it being a better paradigm than a project based one, where each project is completely segregated from the other, unless I choose for them not to be.

  • Chris, you are clearly one of the evangelists for the new system, and I have been reading your posts with great interest. You make many strong arguments, and I agree that there are elements of the event approach that offer something to features. I just think they also bring a lot more trouble than they bring help. I have no doubt that a workable system can eventually be made from what is here, but I just don’t see the point of it when there are already workable systems in place. It really strikes me as re-inventing the wheel (by chipping away at a square to do it.)

    I’ve worked with the interface enough to know I don’t like it. As to efficiency–if that happens to be the way you work, maybe. Me, I like a little bit of clutter. I liked being able to choose how I worked on any given day. Maybe it comes down to that for me more than anything else.

    I do respect your interest in X, and my curiosity about it continues, so I will continue to read your posts with interest. I know that something can be made of X and I would probably be celebrating its existence in FCP hadn’t been EOLed to give it birth. That’s probably the bottom line.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 5:26 pm in reply to: One good thing about X

    Cool. Thanks!

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm in reply to: Audio Sweetening with “channels”

    Sure T. These are broadcast television delivery terms. I’m mostly a promo editor. One of my many delivery requirements are variations of stems, often as compounded Quicktime files. So, my main delivery would be a fully mixed stereo piece, but I am also required to deliver each type of audio on an individual track, like a stem–so, this, for instance, would be a common 8 channel delivery–1) Dia. or SOT, 2) VO, 3) effects, 4)mono music, 5) M&E (a stereo music and effects mix), 6)Full Stereo mix. And then, if 5.1 were involved, that would take up the next chunk of channels, etc. I deliver some form of this for every project I do, and broadcast shows arrive for me in some form like this. You can see from this issue alone, why FCP X is seen by some as a huge pain in the behind.

    As to the mix–you’ve never had clients make changes post-mix?

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 7:05 am in reply to: One Sequence Per Project?

    Very interesting discussion. I have to say I’m glad you got it started. I’m still grumpy and not quite over the shock of FCS3’s retirement, but I do find the thinking behind this very interesting, and I’ve had a pleasant few hours reading through everyone’s posts.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 6:57 am in reply to: One Sequence Per Project?

    Exactly! That’s what I’m seeing.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 6:54 am in reply to: One Sequence Per Project?

    Thank you guys for having this conversation. I really enjoying it. The use of the event library really perplexes me. I really can’t get it out of my head that it is a social media organizational concept. It makes a great deal of sense at the center of something like iPhoto, which builds on experience. I don’t get why it is here, unless this program really HAS been designed as a consumer program from bottom up. I mean, if I’m building my life with home movies and iphone footage and photos from friends and songs I really like, and I’m making project along the way, the all-inclusive event library makes sense. If I’m working on Promos for three different clients next week, all from different networks, and my art documentary on the weekend–what does the event library get me? I understand that I can do some intense indexing to create very precise bin-like behavior, but, while this has some advantage, the overall added complexity does not seem even half worthwhile.

    The approach only makes sense to me as a consumer experience tool that has been rewrapped as a professional tool. Any thoughts?

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 6:36 am in reply to: One Sequence Per Project?

    That’s a piece of good news.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 6:20 am in reply to: One Sequence Per Project?

    J., I’m actually in your camp with my feelings about this. A thing I want to mention to you though, is that this forum has currently been set aside specifically for technical and usage discussions since the main forum has turned into a furnace of anger. Despite my own feeling, which–as I say–are similar to yours, I’m trying to respect this area and engage in discussion. I don’t like the program, but I AM curious about the thinking behind it.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to tell you what to do, but I thought I would let you know what the thinking is behind this impromptu forum.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 6:11 am in reply to: One Sequence Per Project?

    I agree. The more I look into this, the more I do not understand why the decisions behind this were made, other than to augment a consumer experience, and as an extension of the social media experience. I can see no other reason for this kind of architecture. It is a really great idea, following that thinking, if all my video revolves around me or my experience or a company’ experience. I see how media collects, congeals, interrelates and gets “brighter” as more connections and associations are made. It is the kind of thinking that makes iPhoto increasingly “smarter.” But, MY production needs don’t easily fit into or really require in any way this paradigm. I find all of this effort under the hood an intriguing exercise in complexity, but why? And why should I have to come to terms with a whole approach to video? I’m an interested sort of person. I like puzzles. So, if there is something here, I’d really like to find out. But I really cannot see any reason for all of the effort put into this shift, other than as relates to “social media associations.” I see why that would be great for iMovie. Why is it great for Final Cut Pro, other than logging potentially useful metadata? The contortions it has has to go through, conceptually, don’t seem worth the trouble to me. And, by the way, I really am asking. I’m not making a statement.

Page 281 of 282

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