[Jason Brown]

Already have sent feedback. I was hoping
I was missing something.

One more question…is there a way to turn off level control (fcp7 equivalent of option w)

[Jason Brown]

You can’t have a missing
Number in the sequence. U will have to identify frame, remove at finder level…then is use app like “name mangler” to rename entire group of frames with consistent count.

[Jason Brown]

[Oliver Peters] ” there is now a Relink function”

It’s hidden under the file menu, why couldn’t it be a right click function to do directly from timeline?

Also, is anyone else annoyed by not being able to change the track height and content (more audio, less video) with a keyboard function? I use Shift+T in FCP7 ALL the time to adjust and work more precisely with audio…then close it down quickly with shift+T. There has to be a way here…am I overlooking something?

-Jason

[Jason Brown]

Thank you for the response Noah, that makes sense in regards to setting the default event. Is that the only function? If I don’t use the “copy media to events” function, then is it a moot point?

Also, I can’t get this compound clip to copy from one event to another. It’s a sequence I moved from FCP7 to FCPX and it is over one hour long and has one video and audio track with about 100 markers that moved over correctly. I copy, then paste and it gives me the “doink” sound 🙁

I’ll add another question here, can FCPX handle 720p60 footage in a 30p sequence as slo-mo? Or do I need to conform it in cinema tools down to 29.97 before I bring it in?

-Jason

[Jason Brown]

Double click layer, look at footage, control (or command) click time and select “frames”. This will give u frame count.

[Jason Brown]

I’m not able to make it this year, so I’ll be watching online please post anything relevant in this forum. Thanks!!! 🙂

[Jason Brown]

I think this is a good idea.

I’m looking forward to a big announcement in regards to how apple is going to handle optical media!?! 😉

[Jason Brown]

[Michael Gissing] “720 x 486 looks stretched”

I look at 4×3 content at 720 and think it looks stretched… But good point…

[Michael Gissing] “16×9 square pixel translation of 720×486 is 864×486 and you meant 854×486”

no, if you multiply 720 x 1.2 PAR, you get 864. Not sure why DV seems to be 854…but in the research I’ve done, everyone seems to be using that number with DV, but 864 with D1.

[Jason Brown]

[Michael Gissing] “720 x 486 looks stretched”

I look at 4×3 content at 720 and think it looks stretched… But good point…

[Jason Brown]

Michael,

First off, you are assuming that these videos are 16:9.

I’ve dealt with this for years and I have some comments that I think are relevant to the conversation.

First off, I think it’s important to note that the 6 pixel difference between 480 and 486 is so minor that in my testing…you can’t visually see any scaling difference.

Working on AVID back in mid 2000’s, if you exported 16×9 D1 (720×486) from an AVID meridien at square pixels, you’d get a resulting file at 864×486. Working in premier years later, I found 16×9 DV (720×480) footage exported out at square pixels to come out at 853×480. It’s important to note that things seem to have changed around CS3 and CS4. I believe it was CS4 that introduced a new PAR 1.21 instead of the commonly used 1.2 that we had been historically using. Not a huge change, but it seems to have affected things a bit in the translation, I don’t deal in SD anymore, but I just opened Photoshop CS5.5 and the D1 Widescreen square template is 872×486.

My formula that I’ve been using for several years and seems to hold up pretty well:

The 16×9 square pixel translation of 720×480 is 853×480

The 16×9 square pixel translation of 720×486 is 864×486

The 4×3 square pixel translation of 720×480 is 640×480

The 4×3 square pixel translation of 720×486 is 640×480

This is what I use and it has served me well in dealing with archival sources and cataloging older content in a viewable format and aspect.

-Jason