Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
Charlie! You’re my hope, man. You’ve got me convinced that I’ll definitely surf X one of these days. I find that Ad someone posted about an audio designer for X a hopeful thing. Sandeep posted a little primmer on channels that I quite enjoyed. Its definitely moving in the right direction for me. I can’t deny that. And, I truly like reading about your adventures and methods. Color-coded roles might be enough might be enough for me to wax X up and float it on out.
-
[Chris Kenny] “There is nothing about being a creative editor that inherently means one is qualified to comment about big picture industry trends, let alone that one is so uniquely qualified to do so that others should be silent.
“Chris, I should say I enjoy and value your input, even though I often disagree with your assessments. It DOES clarify things for me to understand that your day job isn’t editorial, and I now understand a little bit more about where you are coming from. I also understand the frustration Aindreas is expressing, because so much of what we are arguing here is about a maze that editors are running through daily.
-
[David Cherniack] “[Chris Harlan] ” Wasn’t 4.2 when it became theoretically “useable?””
No. For large projects Premiere 4.2 was misery. It became theoretically and practically usable with the 5.0 64 bit re-write and Mercury playback engine.
David
AllinOneFilms.com
“Yes, I agree. We’re actually talking about Premiere and not Premiere Pro, back a billion years ago when the rumor went around by mouth and in print that it was finally “useable.” I don’t know of anybody who tried it, and had anything to do other than the most rudimentary of computer video edits, that thought it was worth anything. I think it was Premiere 5.0 where you could finally use 3rd party cards to get 30fps playback.
-
[Chris Kenny] “[Chris Harlan] “Yes! I think making Avid X would be the final bullet in the brain pan.”
That’s exactly the problem. Given the likely reaction from Avid’s present user base, that might very well be the case. But the alternative is for Avid to slowly waste away. This is not a prediction — it’s what has been happening for years now.
“But that’s not the problem. People buy X because its from Apple and in the Apple fold, and Apple can sell X as it does because X is basically loss-leader. To suggest that Avid could benefit by directly competing with X on the ground that Apple has established is silly. Yes, Avid has problems, but I don’t see creating their version of X as even remotely an answer.
“Avid’s present user base” is far more varied than you might think, btw. Its not the same as it was a decade ago. That base is now made up of a lot of people who use multiple NLEs and are open to quite a bit more than once was the case.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I think Avid’s problems have very little to do with whether MC needs to be more rewritten more than it has been.
“Yes! I think making Avid X would be the final bullet in the brain pan.
-
[Chris Kenny] “Even if that were the case, replacing code one ‘module’ at a time doesn’t really provide an opportunity to rethink the basic structure of an app, which is a big part of what Media Composer, in my opinion, requires.”
Luckily, not everyone shares your view.
-
Of course its that way, Brett. You just can’t see it.
Actually, if you’d been following the thread you might have noticed that my rather harsh remarks were in response to a squabble Chris Kenny and I were having over Avid’s UI, and that my response was really about some of his notions about what Avid users can and cannot see about their own software. So, it was meant to be an outrageous, over-the-top statement.
As to the rest of your extrapolations, I do’t quite understand where you are coming from. I don’t think X is a toy. I relish documentaries. I will do any kind of work that is available to me. I don’t quite understand your explosion.
As to X’s UI–yes, it is a bit candy-like for my taste. I find the animations wasteful. Is it a deal breaker? No.
-
Thanks! I’ve only watched part of it thus far, but its quite interesting.
-
Interesting. It just doesn’t seem quite worth it to me yet. It seems harder or as hard as what I do now, but with no real gain. I can see giving it a try though, if rolls gets a bit more developed, and I get some color-coding.
-
Chris, I appreciate the time you took, but actually Jeremy and I were having a misunderstanding, or rather I misunderstood something Jeremy said, and took it to mean that there was never ANY reason to separate audio from video. It was in the light of that that most of my blathering was taking place. Since you were kind enough to take the time, though, let me respond to a few of your questions and ask a few of my own:
[Chris Kenny] “[Chris Harlan] “How do you deal with stems that aren’t initially attached, and only match with time code?”
Make synchronized clips in the event viewer before you start editing?
“I understand that as a possibility, but the problem for me is that separate audio stems are often–in fact, more often than not–coming from a different source, late in the process. With TC, I can easily match and replace long into the edit. Even if the TC is wrong, I can work out the difference and make adjustments.
[Chris Kenny] “note that if you disable some audio tracks for a given video clip from the ‘Channel Configuration’ panel, those disabled tracks don’t show up when you expand audio components in the timeline at all “
This sounds relatively useful. In 7, MC and Pr, I just physically strip the many unwanted channels out in a time line, so this might actually be an improvement.
Question: Can I disconnect one channel, and not others? Let’s say I have a clip that has dialog on ch.1, a car backfire on ch. 2, and some OS laughter on ch. 3–How easy is it for me to slide ch. 1 three frames to the left, ch. 2 two frames to the right, and keep Dia. in sync on ch. 2? In traditional NLE’s all I do is slide each along their tracks. How do I do this easily in X?
[Chris Kenny] “Furthermore, note that you can change the sync relationship between audio and video for a given clip via ‘Open in Timeline’ — without detaching audio at all. And of course you can make J and L cuts without detaching audio.
“I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. You can change sync relationship, but do you retain any reference to the original relationship?
[Chris Kenny] “In a regular NLE, if you have video attached to your audio, that video exists on a video track, and you have to put it somewhere, maybe disabled on V2 or something. T”
No, I just delete the video, and if I ever need it back I match frame.
[Chris Kenny] “But in FCP X, the video and the audio are collapsed into a single visible ‘item’ — a clip with both video and audio doesn’t take up any ‘space’ that an audio-only clip doesn’t.
“So much of my work is with audio, that I can’t imagine having them collapsed most of the time. I use waveforms a lot to navigate.
I AM very curious about how channels operates, and whether or not I can adjust or separate individual channels. My fear with X, is that I would end up needing three separate iterations of the above clip to make the kind of adjustments I’m talking about. Would love to be wrong though.