[Glen Hurd]

I’m confused. Why do you need OMF into Final Cut? From a DAW?
I don’t mean to offend, but generally, OMF is used to send audio out of an editor, not in.

Once all the audio has been processed, in ProTools, or Logic or whatever, you would normally bounce or export the audio as a single file back out. That file can then replace the audio of the original sequence (although I would duplicate the original, so if you need to make changes, you always have the original cuts to work with).

Again, if I’m missing something, just ignore what I said. But I’d hate to see you spending money on an import plugin when all you seem to need is a final mix brought back into the edit.

[Glen Hurd]

Considering their most recent move, how can you assume he’s joking? 🙂 Isn’t there even a bigger market just waiting to snatch up a new cheap editor on the Windows side?
But trying to directly compete with programs like Edius would be embarassing – and not for Edius.
Yeah, you’re right. Better just stick to the Mac. They’d get blistered if they tried to compete on the PC.

[Glen Hurd]

Aindreas has mastered the art of message and style. He can say F-U, and still leave everyone smiling.

[Glen Hurd]

[Craig Seeman] “It’s quite possible that you’ll get the ROI on your purchase within 8 months though, given what you paid, and then you can move again as needed.”

Or it’s quite possible that Adobe won’t do anything so stupid as to force him to be hunting around for new solutions again. It’s not just about riding the best horse in the race. It’s also about riding a horse that doesn’t stumble when you need it most.

Go read Philip Hodgett’s piece on why, with FCP X, not only do we NOT need broadcast monitors for broadcast work, we don’t even need to calibrate our monitors anymore – and that’s after a conversation with his contacts at Apple.

Yeah, Apple’s on the right track.

[Glen Hurd]

You might enjoy this 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fapc2Qx9jM

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]

If you don’t have software that lets you clone from one plate to another, you can achieve the same thing in a more “manual” way using Motion.
Take the clip into Motion and duplicate it so you have two layers. Drop the opacity of the top layer down so you can see through it – like an onion skin. Then position the top layer in such a way that a clean sample of color, matching where the dust spot is, is directly over the spot. Ideally, if there is camera movement, you want to find a sample that is located perpendicular to the movement of the camera. So if the camera is panning left and right, look for a solution above or below the spot. The closer your sample is to the spot, the easier your job may be.

Then build a tiny matte that’s barely bigger than the spot, and add a little feather to your taste. That matte is for the top layer, so only the little bit of texture covering the spot is being applied.
Now increase the opacity of the top layer to 100% and see how it looks.
If there’s a slight color shift, you can add some color correction to that top layer, or you can even try dropping the opacity a little. This will be something you may need to play with if there is a gradient falling across the footage where the spot is.
This will at least get you started – without having access to any cloning tools. And because it is sensor dust, you won’t have to track anything, so that part is simple. The feathering on the matte is important so that as the camera pans the scene, the new texture being applied over the spot will slide in and out without drawing too much attention. Depending on camera movement, you may need to work with a new layer everytime the camera moves in a new direction – or if the subject suddenly changes direction. Just dissolve from one layer to another to help with the transition, and you should be able to hide it.

If it sounds like a lot of work, don’t be too disappointed. Dust-busting and wire-removal are valuable skills.

PS I just found this link where someone demonstrates the same principle, along with motion tracking, for Motion. Picture’s worth a thousand words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6YppZDF9fc&feature=player_embedded

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]

I was curious to see if FCP X would allow you to use a v.4 profile without darkening your footage, if you started up FCP X with one of their factory profiles first – available from a short list in your monitor color preferences. Since your v.2 profile is working, you could start FCP X with that instead, and then switch to the v.4 profile in your monitor color preferences after FCP X is running. I was curious about FCP X’s behavior, as this might help decipher where the bug is.
As for everything else, just set your monitor color preference back to your v.4 profile. No need to stay with the older version for your print work – unless you’re having issues in Photoshop as well.

If you haven’t played with the colorsync application, you might want to take a look around with it. It can display a 3D gamut representation of each profile, and let you do an overlay comparison with standardized gamuts to help you assess whether your monitor is even capable of displaying the full gamut of colors required by whatever standard you are working with.
For watching Rec601/709 material, it will need to be able to display 100% of the sRGB profile.
There are real color geniuses on the cow who may jump in, but I hope this helps.

[Glen Hurd]

What OS are you running? I know that 10.6.0 broke most calibration generated profiles for colorsync, but was supposed to be fixed for 10.6.2. Considering that Apple is touting colorsync as a replacement for having access to a broadcast monitor, people are really going to have to tiptoe carefully around getting accurate profiles and calibrations in order to make it “work” (not to mention ensuring your display can actually display the full gamut of Rec601/709). And Apple doesn’t seem overly concerned with profiling monitors anyway. Ever notice how they’ll never mention what gamut their monitors cover? Even the latest LEDs can’t cover AdobeRGB 100%. Which is fine for regular video purposes, but it’d be nice to know this stuff without having to dig for it.
If you’re running Lion, it may bear other people experimenting with different calibration software to see if this issue is limited to ColorEyes software, or if it’s an OS-wide problem.
If you’re running SL, it would be interesting to see if you could choose one of Apple’s profiles when starting up FCP X, and then switch to the ColorEyes v4 profile and see if the profile holds or switches back to the dark image you were seeing originally. Seems people were having issues with custom profiles and Color, and this was one of the work-arounds that seemed to help.

[Glen Hurd]

That’s the right image, but Dr Manhattan is us – not Apple – except in one small detail about midway down, perhaps lol:)

[Glen Hurd]

OK. I think I understand you.
Where I am, cheap gear and cheap editing solutions have been around for what seems like a long time. Yes, it keeps getting better. And so does the “pro” gear. But FCP X at $300 is not going to start a new revolution. We’ve already had it. It was already cheap at $1000.

So instead of competing with the wedding/event people – who must number in the millions now – some of us choose to compete where clients have more demanding expectations. And in that climate of expanding expectations, FCP X fails because it does not allow me to deliver what my clients want. If you are seeing an increase in documentaries in your area, are they airing on television? If so, those people producing those documentaries need to meet certain standards set by the stations. And FCP X doesn’t let us check those standards as we edit. That’s a big problem for most of us.

If your clients are not asking for more than FCP X can deliver, then you are lucky. Use FCP X. Enjoy it – whatever. But if your clients start to ask for more, or you decide you want to move into more difficult teritory, then FCP X will have to be replaced – and you will have to learn a whole new workflow.

Is that really what you want to do? Or do you trust Apple that much?