Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Herb Sevush] “The non Mac versions support ProRes decode so I’m guessing that on Mac it will support full encode and decode in ProRes.”
Good to know. I’m actually impressed with how far its come.
-
[Bill Davis] “Too much FUD in this thread to even begin to address.”
Bill, you’re missing what’s going on in this thread, and you are misunderstanding what Andy was talking about. Really, I think you should take a step back. This is a particularly interesting and relatively non-judgemental thread, where-in people discuss and/or discover that their reactions to X might just have something to do to with the way that they interface with the world at large, and that it is not necessarily because it is a good or bad program. Maybe you could put your sigh away?
-
Bill, this has been a pretty interesting, earnest thread and I think you are missing the boat by not having a closer look. It really gets down to the fundamentals of why some people cotton immediately to X, while others find it uncomfortable and disconcerting. Really, it is worth a thought or two, and might add a little light to just why there is so much contention.
-
[James Culbertson] “Interesting to hear of others workflows. “
It is, isn’t it? That’s one of the cool things about this spot.
-
Looks good. I wonder if the Mac version will support ProRes.
-
[Steve Connor] “Which is exactly why FCPX should let you open keyword collections and projects in separate multiple windows, “
That would be cool.
[Steve Connor] “I’m just pushing back against the idea that somehow you have to sit there and keyword all your clips in FCPX, rather than just dragging a bunch of them into “bins””
Ah! Understood.
-
Agreed. I should have used a smiley-con. I was just being overly enthusiastic.
-
[Herb Sevush] ” In Legacy sometimes the best bin is a timeline.
“For me? If you dumped the “sometimes” I could definitely agree with that statement.
-
Organizationally, there is no question that its a valid approach. I think the point, though, is that some of us tend to use spatial relationships as a big part of our organizational techniques. The screen(s) becomes a desk or workbench. I’m definitely like that. Its the thing I miss most about Legacy; I could bend and shape the layout into anything I wanted. Now, some people hated that, felt that the interface could become needlessly cluttered, and think that of X as bringing new clarity and focus. I’m not like that.
Since its release, I’ve thought that this was one of the central determiners of how people react to X. And, I don’t think there is any right or wrong to that reaction, though I did not think that at first. I wore heavy blinders as to how others worked, and assumed that everyone worked just like me. Having spent so much time on this forum, I of course realize that that’s not the case.
-
I think the point–well, at least the point for me–is that what you can’t do is have multiple bins open and floating around or tucked behind various parts of the screen or screens. I often place bins (or timelines I’m using as bins) on different parts of the screen or screens and muscle memory of spatial relationship becomes part of my categorizing. Those or up there. That’s down there. These are off to the side. The bins are more like containers you’d place on a work bench.