[Glen Hurd]

He started on Premiere on PC, and moved to FCP and got a “mac” because FCP was “easier.” He does more than vlog, having 2 other channels – TobyGames and Tobuscus. Over 5 million views for this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJjJY5YpKRI

He did make some comments about FCP almost a year back – obviously he was struggling a little. But when he mentioned that he owned a mac for FCP, he had to add “. . . if you know anything about Mac – I’m sure you probably hate Mac, ’cause most people do, but I just have Final Cut Pro, ’cause it’s easier than Premiere for me – I think. Now I don’t know . . .”

So, FCP was a draw to a guy who can barely understand what he’s doing. It caused him to buy into a completely strange platform (mac). And he’s got enough presence on the web that the gaming community has tied into him. Seems like a typical target for cheap video editing software – to me.

I think it’s ironic as hell that FCP would convert him from Premiere, and that FCP X would get his head to explode. Maybe we should invite him to the forum. 🙂

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Glen Hurd]

Not for those who move their lips when reading 😉

[Glen Hurd]

When you say it’s rendered, are you saying that you’re working in a multitrack timeline with all the original video elements – and that the timeline has been rendered? Or are you working off a self-contained master file that is in its own sequence for title work? I’m assuming the former, but didn’t want to assume.
If the former, then when you add a title, that segment becomes unrendered, and if there’s a corrupted file/graphic underneath, it may be giving you trouble. Even if a timeline doesn’t need to be rendered for playback, it does for final export.
Try setting an in and out (I-O) point of an already rendered segment of the timeline (without your titles) of about 1 minute and see if that will export normally.
If that doesn’t work then open up another project entirely and see if you can export to the same location with the new program. You may be experiencing something program or system wide if you can’t – like a corrupted destination drive. If there isn’t another project, make one quickly to the same settings using some of the same source footage. It’s a simple test to see if the problem is deeper than your show.

If the first render of the 1min output goes OK, then you need to dig around the files/graphics/filters involved in the area where you’re laying titles.
So what I would do next – is then choose an IO around each title area and try and export each one until I find out which one is locking up the system. Control-B disables clips selectively so you can see which clip may be giving you trouble, trying an export after each is disabled.

If a simple I-O of one minute off a virgin portion of your timeline doesn’t export, but other shows are behaving themselves, then you might want to try changing the opacity down and upI to remove the render of a clip), re-render the clip only, and try to export with an I-O on that clip’s area again.

Not seeing your timeline makes it hard to even guess where the problem could be, so I’m using my imagination a little. Just trying to help.

[Glen Hurd]

Yep. Converting a program to 64-bit doesn’t mean you have to destroy the underlying fundamentals in the process. That excuse is “kaka.”
Been using it for just 2 years myslef (Nuendo before that), and I wouldn’t go back – unless they retarget it or invent another paradigm for it. Heh.
I’m still laughing at Aindreas’ rant when he discovered the audio community might be escaping the “let’s-make-it-nifty” strategy that just hit the editing community. Too funny. 🙂

[Glen Hurd]

[Paul Dickin] “Its really question 2 that was the crucial one.”

That’s the first thought I had when I saw FCP X. “Who were the (inconvenient) support guys that Steve didn’t need?”
The good news, though, is that there seems to be some proof out there that Apple may actually be embarrassed.
There was no sign of regret when they sent Pogue out to chastise us for not being open-minded enough.
There was no sign of regret when they posted their FAQ, assuring us that backwards compatibility was impossible with legacy concepts.
But this little story here (already mentioned in a previous thread) seems to indicate that the Logic engineers have no intention of making the same mistake.

Quote: “According to [our] source, [the] Logic team told [him] only one thing about the next version – Logic Pro X will not have [a] GarageBand style user interface.”

1st sign I’ve seen that Apple is acknowledging a mistake – which – if true – could change everything.

[Glen Hurd]

OK, let me try one more time. The more I look at what you’ve written the more I realize there are 2 areas where I agree with you.

[Jeremy Garchow] “My “disagreement” with Herb is that FCPX is not that much different than when DSLRs first came out. It took a while before they became a “standard”.”

I totally agree with that statement. It is a lot like when DSLRs came out – but with one difference. Just because DSLRs impacted the industry through the clever efforts of video afficianados doesn’t mean FCP X automatically will.

[Jeremy Garchow] What do you think FCPX is? It is a public beta test that is hobbled very purposefully. This is Apple’s way. Remember the first iPhone that didn’t have any apps? It was webapps only? Do you think when they released that first iPhone that they new there was going to be an App Store within iTunes? Why do you think they did it that way? Why do you think they just didn’t release the floodgates of the Apps in iTunes store? They publicly test the waters (and make you pay money for it), make sure the foundation is going to hold and then adjust. This is what I see with FCPX.

Your comments on the first iPhone and the App store are a reference to them slowly making their way into the cell phone market. They were at square 1. They didn’t have an established product line there. So of course they took baby steps working their way into territory nobody thought they could take. Once again, with FCP X Apple is starting out at square 1.

So I do agree with you.

And considering just those 2 points, I wonder what’s left to say?

Who goes from owning a market to giving it away overnight, and then gets celebrated for having the insight to regain it?

Especially now in an unpredictable economy, a wealth-base growing almost entirely on gadgets and a virtual marketplace that feeds off those gadgets, and a couple of legal hurricanes brewing with some very tough companies?
Borrowing from the Usual Suspects, “Where’s your head, Agent Kujan?” You seriously think Apple’s getting back into the editing race again? What are they, gluttons for punishment?

So, anyway, the DSLR analogy was appropriate in the sense that DSLRs represent something new on the market. But being new doesn’t mean squat – like the Apple Cube or the Titanic. The analogy basically ends there. Only time will tell if this thing grows up or follows Aperture. Meanwhile, Adobe’s looking to double their Premiere software revenue in the next year or so, and Avid is learning the benefits of opening up their hardware list. Edius might learn a lesson or 2 from that as well. I’m really curious about Edius. Did you see the color corrector? 10-Bit? With histograms in each of the control overlays and rotoscoping to boot?

And yes, I do have FCP X sitting on a brand new partition.

But everytime I think about booting into it, I somehow end up in Autodesk Smoke.

You see, it works with my legacy FCP 7 projects.

Exciting times!

[Glen Hurd]

Yeah, I was really struggling with the whole “OMF” tracks back to Final Cut with just automation. OMF isn’t going to reference any filters, so what have you gained? DAW work for volume control? I hope you have a full head of hair.

With Logic, you can do an XML/FCP export which bounces each track – baking in all the effects and automation – with each track, into a folder. It also writes an XML file that is supposed to help you bring those tracks into FCP. Fortunately, these tracks can just be dropped into a copy of the sequence – they all start at the same sync point – and all you need to check is your pan setting. Ironically, I can’t get the XML portion to work.
Heh.
(Gotta love how much Apple understands these workflows. It didn’t used to be funny – it used to be annoying. But now it’s hilarious, like I finally understand what’s been going on all this time.)

Anyhoo, I don’t know if that helps you, but it’s cheaper than going with Automatic Duck and only getting your volume automation back!

Thanks for explaining your situation – I was afraid Apple had just re-invented OMF workflows as well, and was ready to go slit my wrist.
J/K 🙂

Have you read this article on using change lists to autoconform in Pro Tools? There’s an internet-based option, too, that seems inexpensive. If you’re going to keep your story in constant motion while expecting audio sweetening along the way, this seems like a more reasonable path.
https://www.editorsguild.com/Magazine.cfm?ArticleID=51

That way you don’t have to do any track-based import, but use a complete mix for the current project at whatever point in time you need a mix. And when you update your edits on the original sequence, send out a new XML, the Pro Tools session gets auto-conformed, and you get back the new mix in a relatively painless workflow.

Key word: relatively

Just a thought 🙂

[Glen Hurd]

Do you know why? What do you gain? Just curious.

[Glen Hurd]

How can I be proving your point? The DSLR revolution predates the AF100, yet you’re disagreement with Herb is based on the fact that the AF100 meets the same needs as DSLR, so who needs DSLRs. Your disagreement with Herb ignores the giant price difference between a 5D and the cheapest Red.
The fact remains that the wide acceptance of the DSLRs, for a variety of very “pro” reasons, caused the birth of the AF100-type product lines – both in video and in the continuing development of DSLR lines. Once they allow DSLRs to record HDMI in 4:2:2 color, the dam is going to break again.
This is the very opposite of FCP X, where a DSLR has been dumped on us, and our video cameras have been EOLed, while we have yet to even find out what we like or dislike about the DSLRs at all.

Apple has done what Panny and Sony and Canon are doing – but exactly backwards. Read what I said before about putting out the “toys” to see what sticks, and growing your main product lines around what we, the users, like.
Apple hasn’t done anything remotely like this.

Take a hypothetical.
Imagine FCP 8 was released. It’s a lot like FCP 7, but has a 64-bit base, can harness all the cpus, can efficiently harness the gpu, and has a color-correction system similar to an $800 editor called Edius. That’s it. Nothing else changed. It’d be a minor upgrade, but I’d find it acceptable. Oh, and don’t kill Color and DVDSP.
Now they throw out iMovie Advanced under its real name. After a year they look around and see what people are saying about it. Do they really like the magnetic thingy or not? Are they really able to type faster because of skimming or not? Are the filters really as liberating as advertised or not? Do they find colorsync to be an alternative to broadcast monitoring or not?
Now they start on FCP 9, taking in the info gathered from a year of watching and listening, seeing what’s going on in the webosphere and in the broadcastsphere – and FCP 8 could have evolved without breaking.

That’s what the camera manufacturers are doing. That’s not what Apple did or is doing.
Instead, Apple gave us few options. Stick with your almost dead video camera or buy a DSLR, but we’re not offering any more models of your dying video camera. And if you think onboard audio, jamming sync, and a bit-depth capable of pulling hair-detail from a greenscreen is a priority, then you’re just too small a niche to be concerned with. Geesh. What do you think we’re going to do?

That’s the way I see your analogy. No-one is saying FCP X has no future with anyone. We’re just saying it’s unusable for our everyday needs, and we doubt it will ever catch up – because if it was intended to catch up, it would have been built with a tad more insight. We don’t believe Apple is that stupid. We just think Apple has its own agenda.

Sell more point-and-shoots.

[Glen Hurd]

Herb’s right. There were some things that a DSLR could do that a video camera couldn’t – at the time they were gaining popularity anyway. Now, video cameras are evolving to take in the best elements the DSLRs had to offer, which is the way it should be. We, the community, discovered how to push and manipulate these little gems into something valuable. We expressed what we loved about them (shallow DOF as a tool, access to a huge range of glass, and small form factor). We expressed what we hated about them (line-skipping, excessive moire, lack of manual controls, lack of audio support, etc.) Then the giants looked at the pressure we built and, after a few years, responded to it.
Enter the AF100 from Panny and the F3 from Sony . . but that’s intelligent.
Some organizations would rather be different.

You see, the camera manufacturers get it.
You let the pros play with toys, and see which ones they cling to. That becomes your market research. Then you incorporate those features into more “pro” products – blammo – instant success. Repeat often.
It’s cheap, self-financed research.

And it doesn’t require you to EOL something in order to force your clients to keep supporting your next product line! Nor do your engineers have to become experts at cinematography.
All they have to do is watch and listen.