Forum Replies Created

Page 282 of 282
  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 5:08 am in reply to: Audio Sweetening with “channels”

    Tim! Boy, I got questions for you.

    Are you able to use these “channels” to affect audio splits? Could they be rendered separately, like dialog, vo, effects, mu? And can you reorganize those groups to create an M&E track and then re-seperate them?

    Also what happens to those groupings if the magnetic track kicks in? Does it break them?


  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 4:55 am in reply to: Can you confirm with me if this is serios bug?

    I cannot confirm that, but I was definitely having crashes related to gfx.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 4:36 am in reply to: One good thing about X

    Really? I didn’t know that! Got a name or a link?

  • Chris Harlan

    June 24, 2011 at 3:27 am in reply to: One good thing about X

    It has better audio meters. You can’t move them around, but they aren’t those absurdly skinny things any more.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 23, 2011 at 10:04 pm in reply to: FCP7 vs. MC5

    Jerry, I’m in the same boat, except I have worked on Avid before. I’ve already upgraded to the recent version of Media Composer, and, over the summer I will look much more closely at Premiere. I’ve got an MX02 mini for my laptop, and I’ve just ordered a card so that it will work with my 8 core. I’ll be able to use all three systems through the summer. I work, project to project, with a lose federation of editors, so I’m getting a jump on coordination for large projects towards the beginning of next year. My answers depend largely on what other people in the community are going to do. So, I’m opening as many dialogs now as I can.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 23, 2011 at 9:50 pm in reply to: FCP7 vs. MC5

    Sorry, Jerry. Hate to disagree, but…

    This is NOT FCP anymore, other than in name. I really liked FCP. This, not so much. The interface is far too interested in trying to teach me how to edit, and trying to make sure I don’t lose sync. But here’s the real deal breaker for me:

    It is not going to be part of the television or film industry. If you look very closely at the implementation of the underlying architecture, I think you will find it clearly built around a consumer. It is event centric and not project centric; that makes sense for iPhoto and a lot of social media,but not for big projects. The reason that audio tracks and channels are missing is not some oversight. They are missing because they conflict directly with magnetic tracks. It is one or the other. A little patience isn’t going to fix that.

    As i said, this isn’t FCP anymore. All that is left is the name. When Apple EOled FCS3, Final Cut Pro died.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 23, 2011 at 6:18 pm in reply to: Wonder what they’re saying in Cupertino…?

    My guess is that they were just expecting this, and that they are looking at it as acceptable, minor collateral damage. They make phones and pads now. What other stuff they still make, really needs to be in service of that market. I don’t think the care two poops that they are handing us over to Avid or Adobe. My guess is that there will be no response, but if there were one, it would be “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”

  • How can you make stems? There are no tracks or assignable channels. The ONLY way to make stems is to turn off all clips that are not, say, dialog and then render out, then turn all back on and repeat for each stem. So technically, it is possible, but extremely tedious. Or am I blind? Am I missing something? I’d sure like to be, but really, I don’t think you can say that you can render out stems in any meaningful way.

  • Chris Harlan

    June 23, 2011 at 7:01 am in reply to: A Question for Broadcast Editors.

    I’m principally a broadcast promo editor, and no, even if missing things like omf, edl and xml showed up tomorrow, I still couldn’t work with it. The thing that makes it most useless is the loss of tracks or assignable channels. Can’t make stems. Can’t deliver split audio. Can’t deliver additional contractual elements.

    Next, the whole event based thing leaves me cold. There seem to be so many storage and media related minefields, and so little possible customization, that I have trouble seeing this used as anything but a personal editor. The logistics of overseeing four seasons worth of promos, from four different shows, split between five or six different editors on six different machines is a no-brainer for me on FCP7. I can’t even imagine it on X. What’s wrong with project based organization anyway? Why is event based organization somehow superior? I get the elegance of it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what I have to do.

    Next, I don’t like the interface. What I have always liked about FCP is its customizability. Two sequences on different monitors, fine. One sequence taking up a whole monitor, fine. Make sequence act like a bin, fine. Work left to right, right to left, up to down, monitor to monitor. Fine. Fine. Fine. There are numerous ways to do everything. Really, amazing freedom, compared to most other editors. I’ve spent a day on X and it is so forced. YOU MUST WORK THIS WAY. You are forced into a single metaphor that has been determined by the design team to be optimal. Ain’t optimal for me. Some things might be faster, but what really struck me was the degree that it was designed for a non-editor. Its like the forced interface is a template to help you edit. And, is sync really such a problem for someone who knows what they are doing? And, do you really want to trade audio tracks for magnetic tracks? Really? Its all stuff for people who are scared to edit.

    So, no I can’t use it now in my work. I will never be able to use it without some way to create splits.

    And no, I would prefer not to use the interface. I find it kludgy and domineering, and ridiculously silly that it is confined to one monitor. I will use it if future work forces me to, but after two ways with it, I’m certain I don’t like, and–as faithful as I have been to Final Cut Pro–it is just not Final Cut Pro anymore.

  • Chris Harlan

    December 30, 2009 at 7:48 pm in reply to: Convert 16:9 to 4:3

    You can take your anamorphic sequence and nest it in a 4:3 sequence–which will automatically letterbox it–then multiply scale of the sequence by, I believe, 1.33 (133%), which will return the nested sequence to its actual size, effectively cutting off the sides. This method is also described in the current FCP manual.

Page 282 of 282

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