Claude Lyneis
Forum Replies Created
-
I have also come to the realization that the pre-edit in the browser with fairly precise in and out markers and keywording is the way to go in FCPX. It is really a different approach than the string out that I used in 7 and what I still see being recommended for other NLE like PP. I took me too long to figure this out and relearn editing, but it really makes the early editing less painful and then the right smart collection gives you a great start for an assembly.
-
A minor point about the new interface. When on the FCPX techniques page, there is no link the FCPX and beyond. I have to go to forums then choose beyond. An extra click is just one too many.
-
Wow, that is a classic.
-
Moore’s law ground to a halt several years ago so the increases to CPU speed are must slower. Of course the industry has some tricks, but doubling processor speed every 18 to 24 months has gone down the drain. I am thinking maybe going to 4k will be a reason to retire my mid 11 27 inch, but I am not sure 4 k is worth the trouble yet.
-
I guess not much is changed. I was poking around on the FCP7 forum and ran into this advice from
—————-
David Roth Weiss on May 25, 2016 at 12:54:41 pmX does indeed support 4K both natively and by transcoding to a mezzanine codec such as ProRes, which it does in the background. That being said, X does require that experienced users learn entirely new and unfamiliar nomenclature and editing techniques that are unfamiliar to most and require a learning curve that many are not willing to take the time to learn. In my opinion Premirre and Resolve offer most FCP user the easiest and most inuitve path for migration to a new NLE.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles
———————
I had to go back to 7 to try something and X and 7 are certainly different. It would now require a learning curve for me to use it after switching in 2011.
Claude Lyneis -
To me Apple’s launch presented existing users of FCP7 with a fork in the road. Switch to X , which was incomplete and required a steep learning curve due to its very different concepts. or switch to something easier to grasp, which was Premiere Pro. In that launch they lost most of a generation of editors and it carries on. At the local college film school, trying to talk to almost any teacher or student about FCPX today is an exercise in futility. The response I get are the same we heard in 2011. I am a one man band and took the less traveled path and enjoy FCPX, but within our local community it makes collaboration difficult.
Could Apple have made a smoother, more helpful transition? Sure, but to sell a radically different approach to existing editors would require overwhelming benefits and I think FCPX can’t make that case. Hopefully, it is doing better in the next generation, unless they go to film schools.
-
If this is the best he can do, no wonder he can’t figure out the simple task of compressing a video for Youtube. I only lasted through about 2 minutes of his blah blah blah. Boring.
-
With my Canon XA-20 I can shoot 60i, but that is really just the way they describe AVCHD 30 fps with interlacing. For sports now, I shoot 60 p (MP4)(60 fps) at 35 Mbits/sec and that gives the best results and can be directly uploaded to Youtube. It also looks great when you go to 50% for slow motion.
On the other hand in all the film school classes the teacher practically insist that we use 24p with a 180 degree shutter to make it film like.
Go figure.
-
Going from PP to FCPX worked reasonable well. Lost the titles and transitions and color correction but it was about 90 per cent there and seemed to be better than what I got opening the XML in FCP7. So I would agree it is OK for a rough cut, but not a final product. Thumbs up for 7 to X.
Claude -
Noah:
Is there a better way?
Claude