Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
Richard,
re: FCP7
You can open sequences in the viewer if you wish. I don’t work that way, so I’m not sure what sorts of issues you may run into.
– click and drag any sequence to the viewer (if there’s a shortcut for this, I don’t know it)
– mark in and out, drag to sequence or otherwise edit as if you were working with a clip – this will give you nested material (which is probably less useful), so …
– mark in and out, command-drag to sequence will give you clipsre: FCPX
I’m interested in a comprehensive comparison of project timelines in the project library vs. compound clips in the event browser. Is the only (practical) difference the location where it is stored? Are their limitations on the compound clip compared to sequences?
Franz.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “sure god, franz, would you like to expand please?”
Aindreas,
Apparently I made this up in my sleep. Some time ago.
They’re called rectified waveforms and defined thusly:
“Rectified waveforms are displayed so that their positive and negative waveform excursions (the portions that fall above and below the center line) are summed together and viewed as a single positive-value signal.”
Non-Rectified versions still seem more useful for detailed work, while rectified views may be more useful for volume work.
Franz.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “that said the FCPX waveform itself is vector simplified unusable trash.”
Aindreas,
I thought this was settled a while back – they’re not waveforms, they’re audiographs. Old habits die hard.
Franz.
-
Steve,
I’m actually collaborating on a secondary project right now – he’s cutting in FCPX and I’ve had him set up the project after my model.
He’s still in early stages, but he’s got all the raw material set up this way.
I may post some thoughts further in the process, in the new year.
Franz.
-
[Steve Connor] “I now understand how he doesn’t use the patching very often, by keeping the B-roll well separated from any narrative, so the auto patching doesn’t encroach.”
Steve,
If you by “B-roll” you mean “non-sync” and by “narrative” you mean “sync” then I think I understand you, and yes the auto-patching is largely accommodated by timeline organization. Note though that mostly I’m working with clips that are already in the timeline in question, and so strictly speaking there’s no patching, unless we broaden the term to include the moving of clips on tracks.
Franz.
-
[Steve Connor] “Pot, Kettle etc”
Steve,
Haven’t we already had the “This forum needs a new name” post for this month?
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] “Sequences open as sequences and I can’t figure a way to set in and outs in a sequence so they can be entered into a second sequence. So for the previously mentioned workflow, I copy and pasted, which was pretty slow.”
Richard,
I would just do it in sequences – first selecting – either with one of the selection tools (usually group selection) or with in and out and option A – then copy and paste.
However, it sounds like you found that unsatisfactory (or slow). Why?
Personally I find the process I’ve outlined much more flexible and the timeline display give much more information (particularly once audio and multiple tracks are involved) than simple viewer in and outs.
Franz.
-
[Steve Connor] “It’s always thin ice when someone starts to question other peoples style of editing to make a point.”
Steve, Morten,
True enough. Apologies to Morten if you feel attacked.
On the other hand it shouldn’t be sacred ground – a lot of good discussion has come from people explaining how they do what they do, and why. (after being challenged).
Also, I’ve just seen a lot of bad practice lately.
Franz.
-
[tony west] “I call it patching because fcp calls it a patch panel that you are clicking on. I don’t see that as broadening the meaning.”
Tony,
Yes, that’s what I thought you meant.
I don’t touch that panel.
Maybe “never in ten years” is a slight exaggeration, but pretty close to never.
Franz.
-
[Morten Carlsen] ” I know you are going to smile over this and further classify me as incompetent in your book which is fine.”
Morten,
If you’re going to make wild claims like “ten times faster”, you’ll probably get called on it. Making up numbers is a not uncommon feint here.
I have no idea of your competence or processes – I’m only going on what you’ve posted.
This was your comparison:
Imagine a project with about a 1000 media files. In a normal NLE that would take about 1000 double clicks alone to view them. In FPCx ZERO.But my point – and I’ll repeat it here again – is not accusations of incompetence, imagined or otherwise; a common refrain in the boards has been that FCPX has certain optimum uses, and users should learn those uses to get the most out of the NLE (in lieu of the non-optimal uses). But this is true of any NLE, and actually not a bad way of assessing them – how broad and deep is the set of optimized uses? how do the optimized uses fit with my needs?
But you’re not going to get good answers to that out of absurd 1000 to 0 click comparisons.
You seem pretty happy using FCPX. There are those still trying to figure out what is next for them; they need insightful comparisons.
Franz.