Christopher Travis
Forum Replies Created
-
After looking around, the best idea I have come up with is to make a long video clip in FCP, featuring all of the people, one after the other, on screen for a set number of seconds, then import that into the replicator, and then change the frame start offset so that each box shows a different person.
Is there an easier way than that?
-
Hi John,
Thanks for the reply, I will certainly try that to see if it makes a difference.
I know there are a number of workarounds to this problem, and once I have a proper chat with the tech people at the web developers I’ll be able to find a solution.
The thing that’s really getting me is that we’ve delivered some 800 clips to these guys in the same format, and we are suddenly having these problems. The weirdest thing is that we are getting just one or two clips in a batch sent back when, as I said before, all of the clips get converted at once as a batch job in compressor so I don’t see how one or two of them can be coming out differently? This would suggest a problem when exporting from FCP but the sequence settings are the same for all of them.
It’s not a great emergency, as I said , there are workarounds but from a technical point of view this is driving me a crazy.
-
Sometimes I’ll double the clip up onto the track above, turn the opacity of the top clip down to 50% and then slip it out of sync to give a ghosting effect. Slip it just a little out of sync to kind of simulate a slower shutter speed, or slip it completely out of whack to make it go crazy.
-
Nevermind,
I found a quick solution. I just opened the “reconnect media” dialogue box, made sure only offline clips were displayed, expanded the window to show the entire list, and then took a screengrab.
-
Thanks for the response.
I haven’t had a chance to try it out properly yet as I’ve been scrambled onto another project but when I get back to this one I will give it a try and let you know what happens.
Thanks again.
-
ok, it seems like I am definitely going to have to just get stuck into this myself. Despite the testimony of about 4/5 learned professionals I’m still none the wiser as to whether the function I require is in the program.
-
I’ve tried hard not to get caught up in this hysteria to be honest. I have also been looking forward to the point at which I get to sit down and actually road test FCPX and see what new timeline features it has. I have decided to accept that all the of the years I have spent working around FCP7s interface to make myself more efficient may have to be thrown out the window but that’s ok, because this new toll will make me more efficient right from the start right?
Maybe not it seems. Whatever the case, Apple are still going to get £180 of my money so I can try it out for myself. Again, sorry for the thread hijack.
-
So many great applications for this tool. Find it hard to understand why they would ditch it.
Oh and thanks for explaining the difference. I’ve been calling “replace” “fit to fill” for about 5 years now I think.
-
Ah ok. I just checked and it seems “fit to fill” is essentially the same as “replace” but when there is no clip on the selected track right?
Either way, the loss of this tool seems like a great shame to me. Is it just me? Do other people use this tool a lot as well?
-
If there is no equivalent then that REALLY sucks. Until I’ve really road tested it, I’m going to assume that the functionality is there, just hidden under a new name. I thougth the WHOLE POINT of the new FCPX UI and ALL of the controversy it has caused was that it was supposed to make timeline editing faster, at the expense of certain more high end I/O workflow features.
If they have taken away useful tools and not replaced them with better ones, what exactly was the point?