[David Powell]

Well the problem is I can’t trouble shoot. Once I open the program with the problem event, I get beach ball and have to quit with task manager.

[David Powell]

When you use plural eyes it automatically creates a separate event for the multicam sync. I probably should have merged it in hindsight but I didn’t. Now its showing that one offline though event manager still reads it on the hd.

[David Powell]

I wasn’t meaning to argue wich method is superior, I was just pointing out that there is no equivalent. An Avid extend pulls the edit point to the playhead without having to select the edit point. And of course you can do it on whichever track you are patched to. The reason it won’t work on X is that there is no way to control which layer is responding to the playhead. Also you are restricted to the primary storyline for roll edits (unless I am mistaken please correct me).

As for rock n roll (I’m guessing thats PP’s dynamic trimming?) there is also no equivalent. FCP 7 had a lousy version of dynamic trimming that noone ever used. In Avid and Premiere 6 you can trim the edit with JKL. Also in Avid (not sure in Premiere) one stroke selects the edit and trim mode. In X you must go next edit to get to the proper spot and then enter trim mode with [].

Again, not saying one is better than the other, though I clearly have my preference. Just pointing out that they are not equivalent.

[David Powell]

If the P-pro trim tools anything like Avid’s, FCPX’s is absolutely not equivalent. There is nothing close to dynamic trimming and Extend Edit only share name with what it means in Avid. The magnetic timeline makes an equivalent impossible because the Timeline indicator does not respond to track levels (since there aren’t any tracks). This why you have to click on an edit point, set the position of the Timeline indicator, then hit shift X to do extend edit. Avid style extend means wherever the timeline indicator is you hit one command and the edit rolls there. Its a HUGE difference.

I can’t believe that anyone who would compare dynamic/rock n roll trimming to trimming in X has actually used either of the former.

[David Powell]

What camera are you using? I use plural eyes 3 and find that sometimes it wont sync an NEX 7 properly and neither will FCP X. Try doing it straight through the plural eyes rather than xml route and see if it makes a difference. Are you mixing framerates?

Are you using the Audio as the primary or the clips?

[David Powell]

Thanks for chiming in Brett,

I know those weren’t there in the early days, but they did become an intricate part of editing for me that I feel like they should be a given.

When I say the “source match frame” or “find bin” (as its called in Avid)is gone due to paradigm shift, its because keyword collections are just that. Which is why I say they don’t replace or function as bins. I miss bins because the bin held a group of clips in a more organic way. Sometimes I dont remember which clip I’m looking for specifically but I know it was in the bin with a certain other clip. I guess I have to better organize with keywords than with bins or find a different approach.

I’m sure all those other features will eventually come back, but you don’t realize how much you relied on them until they’re gone.

I’m going to start reading up more on different organization methods in the meantime to ensure I’m getting all the power out of keywords that I should be.

[David Powell]

I don’t know enough about PP to know whether it would be or not. I have been considering it. I’ve spent the last 4 months diving deep into FCPX and have been using it exclusively for a specific client who also has it. Using X gives me wiggle room, so that he can make changes down the road if need be since he has FCPX.

Also, I’m not sure what I would love hate about PP and to be honest, I’ve spent so much time (lost $$$) trying to get efficient on X that I want to make it worth it. I think X has a lot of merit. But in the name of paradigm shift some cool things are lost forever like match framing. And in the name of simplicity customizable features that have nothing to do with paradigm shifting (clip colors, track colors, colored markers, gap detection, peak indicators, custom window layout ) are lost until/unless apple decides to bring them back.

And imo, I don’t think theres anything wrong with missing any of these.

I’m on a 2011 Imac 27 with AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2048 MB, so I’m not sure that I’ll get the performance I need to playback h.264 and avchd in multicam without mercury engine. I’ll have to test. For now I’m sticking with FCPX and trying best as I can to get quicker.

[David Powell]

They have similar functions and have greater function in areas but they are not equally functional. Keywords are restrictive in that I cannot have multiple keywords open at the same time. Secondly, keywords ruin the function if match frame.

I like to organize my footage so that when I match frame a clip it goes to a specific group of clips that I know are together. Instead, match frame takes me out of my keyword collection and forces me back to the event level.

I find this type of function a nuisance. In short I want to be able to isolate a clip in a group. I don’t want the clip completely isolated. Another example where it takes 3 steps to do what used to take one. 1. Match frame. 2. Find keyword. 3. Click keyword. 4. Find that clip in the keyword collection as the specific selection of clip has now been lost.

That’s 4 steps. Yes keywords hold more searchable data, but they function completely different from bins just as story lines function different from tracks, though they are the replacement of tracks. Yes you gain magnetism, but you lose XYZ ability that tracks provided. And when I go to trim I find myself missing tracks, clip colors, marker colors etc

[David Powell]

I think its safe to say at this point in history that any NLE can cut a feature, including imovie. Had FCPX been made by Sony, Edius etc…I doubt many people on here or elsewhere would be bothering with it. The Apple name and FCP title is what brought people to the software. Thats not to say it isn’t good, but other NLE’s like CS5 were not even considered until Legacy was axed.

My point is that I think X is stronger than others for event scenario cutting and weaker for longform multi-seat workflow. As much as I love Avid, there is way to much overkill for cutting events vs FCPX mainly because you can’t create multi-clips with filler in the middle.

[David Powell]

I know both Avid and Legacy well, have been using FCPX for about 5 months now. The trimming sucks. But to be fair, the trimming sucked in legacy compared to Avid and the patching was awful as well. I think FCP X was made for TV/Film first. It was made for weddings, parties, actor reels first, with the ability to expand into bigger productions for those who are loyal to apple and want to make it work. The price range and usability is great for those who needed more than imovie but less of a learning curve than FCP 7.